Summary
holding that, "[e]ven if Plaintiff's conclusory allegations regarding Americredit's purported fraud or lack of standing could be interpreted as a claim that the state court judgment (rather than the underlying transaction) was procured through fraud, res judicata would still apply," and noting that, "[u]nder New York law, '[t]he remedy for fraud allegedly committed during the course of a legal proceeding must be exercised in that lawsuit by moving to vacate the civil judgment [under CPLR 5015(a)(3)], and not by another plenary action collaterally attacking that judgment"
Summary of this case from Graves v. Goodnow Flow Ass'n, Inc.Opinion
07 Civ. 4039 (SCR) (MDF).
June 23, 2009
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this lawsuit, pro se plaintiff Nkosi Gray claims that Americredit Financial Services, Inc. and Americredit's attorney, Ronald Konove, violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. in seeking to recover automobile loan payments purportedly due and owing from Gray. Gray explicitly seeks to have this Court review and reverse a decision rendered by the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, on March 9, 2004, in which the Honorable Ronaldo Acosta found that Americredit was entitled to summary judgment and that Gray was in default of his loan payments. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Mark Fox to issue a Report and Recommendation on the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Magistrate Judge Fox issued the Report and Recommendation on April 22, 2008, advising this Court to dismiss the Complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and under the doctrine of res judicata. As Judge Fox explicitly noted at the end of the Report and Recommendation, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b) and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties had a right to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation within thirteen working days from April 22, 2008. Gray filed purported objections to the Report and Recommendation on May 9, 2008, to which the defendants responded on May 15, 2008.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
II. DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C § 636Nelson v. Smith618 F. Supp. 11861189accord Edwards v. Fischer 414 F. Supp. 2d 342346-47see also Pizarro v. Bartlett776 F. Supp. 815817de novo72United States v. Male Juvenile121 F.3d 3438Id. Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan806 F. Supp. 380381-82 Renelique v. Doe2003 WL 23023771 a. Objections to the Report and Recommendation
First, Gray objects to the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in this case. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Under Rooker-Feldman, lower federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over cases that seek appellate review of state court decisions. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005). Gray argues that the lower court's decision was procured through fraud and, that due to deficiencies in the state court proceeding, the judgment is void.
The Court has considered the issue de novo, and the legal analysis and conclusions contained in Judge Fox's Report and Recommendation on the application of the Rooker-Feldman are adopted entirely by this Court. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Gray's claims. The defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is therefore granted.
b. Conclusion
The remainder of Gray's purported objections fails to address any legal rule, analysis, or characterization of material facts in the Report and Recommendation. Consequently, this Court reviews the remainder of Judge Fox's Report and Recommendation for clear error only. Having reviewed the remainder of Judge Fox's thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, this Court has determined that there is no clear legal error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and orders that Gray's Complaint is dismissed, with prejudice, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case, terming docket entry 8.
It is so ordered.