Atlantica LLC v. Salahuddin

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendant's Objections are OVERRULED and Defendant's pending 3 Motion to Stay is DENIED as MOOT. This case is hereby dismissed. Signed by Chief District Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 1/3/2025. (tb)(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
ATLANTICA LLC,
Plaintiff,

:
Case No. 2:24-cv-4098
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A.
Jolson

v.
AMEENA SALAHUDDIN,

:

Defendants.
ORDER
Ameena Salahuddin removed this action from the Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas through a document titled Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 1-1.) The
removal/appeal concerns a foreclosure action that Atlantica LLC prosecuted against
Ms. Salahuddin. Atlantica LLC v. Salahuddin, No. 17 CV 011307 (Franklin Cty.
C.P., filed Dec. 22, 2017). Specifically, Ms. Salahuddin asks this Court to (i) reverse
an October 2024 state court order confirming a sheriff’s sale of her home and
(ii) intervene to stop the sale. (ECF Nos. 1-1 and 3.) Shortly after Ms. Salahuddin
removed the case, the Magistrate Judge ordered her to show cause why this Court—
a court of limited jurisdiction—has authority to hear her cause. (ECF No. 4.) Ms.
Salahuddin responded. (ECF No. 8.) In a Report and Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court dismiss the cause for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. (R&R, ECF No. 9.) Ms. Salahuddin objected. (Obj., ECF No. 10.)
If a party objects to a report and recommendation, the Court “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge first evaluated whether Ms. Salahuddin’s Notice is
properly construed as a removal, but concluded that “whether this action is a
removal” or not, Ms. Salahuddin “seeks federal appellate review of a state court
judgment.” (R&R, PAGEID # 86.) She explained that federal district courts lack
jurisdiction over such claims. (Id., PAGEID # 87). See also Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462 (1983)). The Magistrate Judge went on to explain that the other federal statutes
cited by Ms. Salahuddin do not confer subject matter jurisdiction over her claims.
(Id., PAGEID # 61.)
The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions or reasoning.
Ms. Salahuddin’s objections provide no basis otherwise. There, Ms. Salahuddin
“acknowledges that she erred in filing her . . . case in this court,” and asks the
Court’s leniency in view of her pro se status. (Obj., PAGEID # 92.) But without
subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court has no power to exercise leniency.
Accordingly, Ms. Salahuddin’s Objections (ECF No. 10) are OVERRULED. The
Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 9). The case is DISMISSED. Ms. Salahuddin’s pending
motion (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
TERMINATE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2