Reid v. Rooms To Go Tennessee Corp.
ORDER: The Court adopts the 24 Report and Recommendation and Defendant's 11 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 9/28/2017. (xc: Pro se party by regular mail) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ab) Modified on 9/28/2017 (ab).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
ELYSE J. REID,
ROOMS TO GO TENNESSEE CORP.,
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (“R&R”) (Doc.
No. 24) recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff
has filed timely objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 27.) The Court has reviewed the R&R and the
parties’ briefs and has conducted a de novo review of the record. For the following reasons, the
R&R is ADOPTED.
Plaintiff raises two objections:
Res judicata does not apply because she was not afforded a full and fair
opportunity to raise her claims in state court; and
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply because she does not seek to
overturn any ruling in the state court proceedings.
(Doc. No. 27 at 1.)
Plaintiff’s briefing on her objections confirms that she is attempting to re-litigate matters
that were covered in the relevant state court proceedings. As the R&R correctly explains, the
disposition of the state proceedings renders her claims here subject to res judicata, and any attempt
to disturb the outcome of those state court proceedings would violate the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Plaintiff’s first objection reiterates her complaints about the fairness of the state court
proceedings but identifies no reason to depart from the well-settled precedents that establish the
outcome of those proceedings as binding. Plaintiff’s second objection presents a catch-22: if
indeed Plaintiff does not seek to have the state court rulings overturned, then she is bound by those
rulings and precluded from seeking to bypass them here. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
No. 11) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Halt/Stay Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss & Motion to
Compel Material Facts from Defendant (Doc. No. 30). This Motion identifies no reason that would
justify the Court postponing its disposition of the Motion to Dismiss. Because the case is being
dismissed, Plaintiff’s request to compel production of information by Defendant is moot. This
Motion (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?