From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartz v. Indymar Federal Bank

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
Dec 7, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-01267 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 7, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-01267.

December 7, 2009


MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER


In late November 2009, the plaintiff filed with this court an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Docket 1], a Motion to Reverse Settlement [Docket 2], and a Motion for Injunction [Docket 4]. This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition ("PF R"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and recommended that the court deny these motions and dismiss this action with prejudice [Docket 5]. Since the PF R was filed, the plaintiff has filed a Motion to Reconsider her Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket 8], a Motion to Reconsider her Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [Docket 9], and a Motion to Produce Original Promissory Note [Docket 10].

The Magistrate Judge concluded that this court is without jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Supreme Court has recently clarified that this doctrine applies to "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The Magistrate Judge proposed a finding that the plaintiff is "challenging one or more state court orders to evict her from 1325 Summit Drive, and that this court's review of those decisions amounts to an appeal therefrom, and is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine." (PF R at 6.)

The court agrees with the thorough analysis of the Magistrate Judge. This court is without jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, this court DENIES the plaintiff's motions [Docket 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10] and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's PR R [Docket 5]. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.


Summaries of

Hartz v. Indymar Federal Bank

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
Dec 7, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-01267 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 7, 2009)
Case details for

Hartz v. Indymar Federal Bank

Case Details

Full title:MARY LYNN HARTZ, Plaintiff, v. INDYMAR FEDERAL BANK, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division

Date published: Dec 7, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-cv-01267 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 7, 2009)