Michael O'Grady v. Anoka County Board, etc., et al, No. 08-2156 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - dismissal. District court did not err in dismissing complaint as barred under Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Dismissal was also required based on appellant's failure to obtain prior approval as required by district court.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2156 ___________ Michael O Grady, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Anoka County Board of * Commissioners; Marathon County * Board Supervisors; Keith Langenhan; * Dan ErHart; Robert M.A. Johnson; * Daniel Klint; Klint s Law Office; * Marathon County Department of * Social Services; Thomas Finley; * County Child Support Agency; Scott * Corbett; Marathon County Clerk of * Courts; Sandra Murcus; Diane L. * Sennholz; Roy Habeck; James R. * Habeck; Phyllis Habeck; Penny * Habeck; Synthia Y. O Grady-Klint; * Daniel L. Overbey; Karen * Casteel-Schlise; Shawano County * Board; Dorothy Bain; Interstate Title * IV-D Compact Agency; Honorable N. * Patrick Crooks; Honorable David T. * Prossier; Honorable Patience Drake * Roggenshack; Honorable Louis Butler; * Honorable Thomas Cane; Honorable * Gregory A. Peterson; Honorable * Michael Hoover; Honorable Shirley S. * Abrahamson; Honorable Jon P. Wilcox; * Honorable Ann Walsh Bradley; * James C. Alexander; Wisconsin * Counties Association; Murnane & * Brandt; Wisconsin Municipal Mutual * Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. [UNPUBLISHED] Insurance Company; Covenant Home Services, LLC, Appellees. * * * * ___________ Submitted: October 6, 2009 Filed: October 8, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Michael O Grady appeals the district court s1 order dismissing as RookerFeldman2 barred his complaint alleging wrongs stemming from his 1997 divorce, custody, and support proceedings. The dismissal order also required O Grady to obtain permission from the Chief Judge of the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota before filing in that court any future action containing similar allegations. Upon review, we find no basis for reversal. See Skit Int l, Ltd. v. DAC Tech. of Ark., Inc., 487 F.3d 1154, 1156-57 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of district court s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits lower federal courts from exercising appellate review of state-court judgments); cf. Sassower v. Carlson, 930 F.2d 583, 584 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (enjoining vexatious litigant from filing civil actions in Minnesota district court without first obtaining leave). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). -2-
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.
