Roosevelt Broome, Jr. v. Michael Hunter, No. 10-1712 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1712 ROOSEVELT BROOME, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL S. HUNTER; J. W. ENGLAND; D. STEITZ; K. JONES; H. A. BRITTON; A. CONNER; K. F. WILLIAMS; K. PAIGE; SHARONVIEW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00192-RJC-DSC) Submitted: January 7, 2011 Decided: January 27, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roosevelt Broome, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Keith B. Nichols, HORACK TALLEY PHARR & LOWNDES, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina; Sean Francis Perrin, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roosevelt Broome, Jr. appeals the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court s order. In Broome s complaint, he alleged that a state court s order in foreclosure proceedings on his residence violated his federal rights. Appellees The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion jurisdiction. to dismiss the complaint for lack of Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the district court may designate the magistrate judge to conduct a hearing, make proposed findings of fact, and recommend a disposition on certain motions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). Once the magistrate judge files a report and recommendation, the parties have ten days to object to it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2006). A district court reviews de novo . . . those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made. Id. Here, before the time had expired for Broome to object to the report, the district court adopted the magistrate judge s recommendation and dismissed the complaint, stating that, as the court lacked jurisdiction over the complaint, waiting for Broome to file objections to the report would serve no valid purpose. While we do not condone the district court s failure to comply with the statute, we find that this error was harmless as the 2 court s conclusion that it complaint was not in error. lacked jurisdiction over Broome s See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994) (Rooker/Feldman abstention doctrine prevents party losing in state court from seeking appellate review of the state judgment in federal district court, based on party s claim that the state judgment violated the party s federal rights) (citing D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
