Dailey et al v. Chase Mortgage Company et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 7-7-10. (ga)

Download PDF
-NMK Dailey et al v. Chase Mortgage Company et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MINISTER SCOTT DAILEY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. CHASE MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. OPINION and ORDER Plaintiffs, who are proceeding without the assistance of counsel, bring this action challenging their eviction from their Civil Action 2:10-cv-517 Judge Smith Magistrate Judge King resid e n c e , ordered as part of state court foreclosure proceedings. Named as defendants are Chase Mortgage Company and the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Complaint, attached to Doc. No. 1; Amended Complaint , Doc. No. 5. On June 7, 2010, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the action be dismissed for failure to allege subject matter jurisdiction as required by Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. No. 3. Initial Screening Report and Recommendation, This matter is now before the Court on plaintiffs' objections to that Report and Recommendation , which the Court will consider de novo. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. In their objections, Doc. No. 4, plaintiffs expressly invoke the Court's federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1331, and allege that t hey "were never heard in Franklin County Court. Plaintiffs allege a This suit [v]iolation of the United States Constitution 14th Amendment. is an Original Action." also filed an amended Objection, p. 3, Doc. No. 4. complaint in which they Plaintiffs have claims of assert "misfeasance," "retaliation per R.C. 5321.02," "nonfeasance," "passive Dockets.Justia.com negligence," "unjust enrichment," "abuse of process" and "color of law misuse of power" against the two named defendants. Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 5. The Amended Complaint seeks recovery of damages. T his Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this action, regardless of plaintiffs' characterization of their claims, reflects a c hallenge to actions taken in the state court foreclosure action. As the Magistrate Judge noted, however, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain that challenge. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Inds. Corp ., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). To the extent that plaintiffs disagree with any aspect of t he state court proceedings, their sole remedy is to pursue an appeal from the actions taken in those proceedings. Accordingly, plaintiffs' objections to the Report and Recommendation , Doc. No. 4, are DENIED. is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED . The Report and Recommendation This action is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT. Moreover, the Court concludes that an appeal from the final judgment would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). s/George C. Smith George C. Smith, Judge United States District Court 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?