Easterling v. Donovan

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Easterling's Motions for Relief from Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) should be denied. Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/27/2015. (kpf)(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-130
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
These cases are before the Court on identical1 Motions for Relief from Judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In them he reiterates his oft-made claim that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 trumps the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. Columbia
Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). That was not the law when these cases were
dismissed and that is not the law now. If Mr. Easterling disagrees with this conclusion, he
should take his claim to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which has
exclusive jurisdiction to reverse this Court is it is wrong.
Both Motions for Relief from Judgment should be denied.

May 27, 2015.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

1

To the point that the District Judge’s first name is misspelled in both Motions.
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