Foster v. Brooks

Filing 24

ORDER: Having fully considered Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes they are without merit, and that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED , and this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 3/22/19. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

DOUGLAS S. FOSTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

KAREN H. BROOKS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:18-cv-00323
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOLMES

ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
20), recommending the Court grant Defendant’s Karen H. Brooks’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Doc. No. 15). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the “domestic relations exception” precludes the
Court from hearing this case. Finally, the Magistrate determined that subject matter jurisdiction
could not rest on Plaintiff’s citation of 10 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1415 because there is no private right of
action under those provisions for his claims.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for De Novo Determination by the District Judge (Doc. No. 21).
The Court construes the Motion as objections to the Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any portion of a report and
recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603
(6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F.
Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report

made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n
of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the 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)(C).
The Court has reviewed the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s
lengthy Memorandum of objections. The Court fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking in this case as Plaintiff’s claims are, in essence, a request
for this Court to overturn the state courts’ interpretation of the parties’ Marital Dissolution
Agreement and divorce decree, which is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the
domestic relations exception. In addition, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s citation of 10 U.S.C. §§
1401-1415 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction because he has not established these statutes
create a private right of action under the facts alleged. Plaintiff’s objections fail to state viable
grounds to challenge these conclusions, or otherwise provide a basis to reject or modify the Report
and Recommendation.
Having fully considered Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes they are without merit,
and that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted and approved. Accordingly,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED, with
prejudice.
This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
It is so ORDERED.

_______________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2