Opinion
Civil No. 01-1762(JRT/FLN)
September 23, 2002
Solomon W. Endeshaw, Minneapolis, MN, plaintiff pro se.
Kristyn M. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated February 6, 2002. The Court has conducted a de novo review of plaintiff's objection pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and D. Minn. LR 72.1(c)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and grants defendant's motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
This is the second case in which plaintiff Solomon Endeshaw ("Endeshaw") has sued defendants. The first case, Endeshaw v. Poston, et al, Civil No. 00-691, was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Donovan Frank on June 29, 2001. This matter arises from plaintiff's attempt to re-open that case. Endeshaw, a defendant in a state criminal action, alleged that defendant, Judge Janet N. Poston ("Poston") was somehow involved in the confiscation of his driver's license and in matters relating to his state probation. As the Magistrate Judge noted, the issues in this case are identical to those alleged in the previous action.
The Magistrate Judge noted that it is not clear what role defendant Karen Kampa played in plaintiff's allegations, and Kampa may not have been served notice of this or the previous action. See Rep. Rec. at 2.
ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge determined that this case falls within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which holds that lower federal courts do not have jurisdiction over challenges to state court judgments. See Lemonds v. St. Louis County, 222 F.3d 488, 492 (8th Cir. 2000). The Magistrate Judge further determined that the Younger abstention doctrine prevents this Court from exercising jurisdiction over a matter pending in state court. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971).
Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation do not address the Magistrate Judge's legal determinations. Even giving plaintiff's arguments a liberal interpretation, which is appropriate because he appears pro se, the Court cannot discern any proper objection. Rather, it seems that plaintiff simply disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's decision. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's analysis and of the record as a whole. Upon this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge was correct.
Federal courts have no jurisdiction over challenges to state court judgments. Lemonds, 222 F.3d at 492. This rule — the Rooker-Feldman doctrine — bars federal claims that succeed "only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issue before it." Id. at 493. Here, plaintiff's allegations all relate to issues decided or pending by the state courts of Minnesota. This court is powerless to hear such matters. Therefore, the Court must overrule plaintiff's objections, and grant Poston's motion to dismiss.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES plaintiff's objection [Docket No. 12] and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 11]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 2] is GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.