Easterling v. Donovan

Filing 12

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 11 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT filed by Warren Easterling Objections to R&R due by 9/28/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 9/9/2015. (ead)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WARREN EASTERLING,

:
Case No. 3:14-cv-217
Petitioner,
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsJUDGE MARY DONOVAN, et al., ,
Respondents.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No.
11).
Plaintiff appears to believe, mistakenly, that this case has been dismissed because of this
Court’s determination that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not entitle a party to proceed if jurisdiction is
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Although the Court has made that determination in
many other cases filed by Mr. Easterling, it has not made any such determination here.
Rather, this case was dismissed for want of prosecution because Mr. Easterling’s motion
to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and he never paid the filing fee. Since he has not
tendered any filing fee with the Motion for Relief from Judgment, it should be denied.
September 9, 2015.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

1

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

2