Opinion
Civ. No. 05-2418 (JNE/JJG).
June 19, 2006
ORDER
In a Report and Recommendation dated April 25, 2006, the magistrate judge concluded that subject matter jurisdiction over this action does not exist pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Consequently, the magistrate judge recommended that Defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment be granted, that the remaining motions be denied as moot, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation, and some defendants responded to his objections. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation with the exception of the recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice. Instead, the Court dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437, 438-39 (7th Cir. 2004). In Frederiksen, the Seventh Circuit explained that a case dismissed pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of federal jurisdiction. A suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction cannot also be dismissed "with prejudice"; that's a disposition on the merits, which only a court with jurisdiction may render. "No jurisdiction" and "with prejudice" are mutually exclusive. When the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies, there is only one proper disposition: dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction. A jurisdictional disposition is conclusive on the jurisdictional question: the plaintiff cannot re-file in federal court. But it is without prejudice on the merits, which are open to review in state court to the extent the state's law of preclusion permits.Id. at 438 (citation omitted); cf. Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) ("[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying claims."); County of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464 (8th Cir. 2004) ("A district court is generally barred from dismissing a case with prejudice if it