Beck v. Leary

Filing 11

OPINION and ORDER adopting 2 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 10/31/17. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Sean W. Beck,
Plaintiff,
V.

Michael Leary,

Case No. 2:17-cv-420

Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Deavers

Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER

Sean W. Beck ("Plaintlfr) is a federal inmate proceeding pro se. He filed
this action to seek review of a final state court judgment that granted the adoption

petition relating to PiaintifTs claimed bioiogicai child. Magistrate Judge King
issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") granting Plaintiffs motion to

proceed in forma pauperls ("IFP") but, after conducting an initial screening of his

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), recommending dismissal of Plaintiffs
action for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction. R&R, EOF No. 2. Specificaiiy,
Magistrate Judge King concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests this

Court of Jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiffs claims seeking relief from the effect of a
state court Judgment, /of. at 2. Plaintiff objects. ECF No. 8.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) provides that "[wjithin 14 days
after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may
serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). "The district judge must determine
de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Plaintiff makes two objections to Magistrate Judge King's findings. First,
Plaintiff asserts that he did not file his Complaint until after the Court issued the

R&R, and therefore, the Court made its recommendation without a proper review
of his Complaint. This objection is not well taken. Plaintiff attached to his motion
for leave to proceed IFP a copy of his Complaint and exhibits to the Complaint.

ECF No. 1. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge King was able to properly review
Plaintiffs entire Complaint before making her recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C.§ 1915(e).

Second, Plaintiff avers that this Court does have jurisdiction to hear his
claims for due process violations allegedly caused by the decisions of the Ohio
state courts. This objection is meritless. Plaintiffs Complaint "request[s]
permission ... to bring action [sic] from states [sic] court to the federal courts"

and alleges that the "trial court, appeals court, and the the [sic] Supreme Court of
Ohio" violated Plaintiffs due process rights by terminating his parental rights

without clear and convincing evidence that his child was permanently neglected.
Compl., ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 6. Plaintiff also alleges that the state appellate
court improperly ruled on the adoption petition without reviewing the transcripts of

the probate court. Id. at PAGEID # 7. Plaintiff essentially seeks a review of a
final state court judgment. This Court's review of such a judgment is barred by
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,462 (1983) ("[A] United States District Court has no
authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings. A
review of such judgments may be had only in [the United States Supreme]
Court."): see also Sturgis v. Hayes, 283 F. App'x. 309, 313 (6th Cir. 2008)

(stating that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal courts from hearing
cases in which "a plaintiff asserts... that a state court judgment itself was
unconstitutional or in violation of federal law" (quoting McCormick v. Braverman,

451 F.3d 382, 395 (6th Cir. 2006)). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge correctly
concluded that this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs claims.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objection, ADOPTS the

R&R, and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

nCHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT