Unpublished Dispositiongoldome Federal Savings Bank, Successor in Interest to Uniondime Savings Bank, Plaintiff-appellee, v. William K. Elrich, Defendant-appellant,citizens Mortgage Corporation, Howard Krisher, Manufacturershanover Mortgage Corporation, Defendants, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee, 918 F.2d 178 (6th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
Nov. 16, 1990
Before KENNEDY and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.
William K. Elrich, pro se, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his petition for removal filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. He requests the appointment of counsel. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. The panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
William K. Elrich sought review in federal district court of a foreclosure action commenced in the Montgomery County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Union Dime Savings Bank v. Elrich, No. 75-2633, and the appeal from an adverse decision in that case, Union Dime Savings Bank v. Elrich, No. CA 11791 (Montgomery County Court of Appeals). He further sought to correct errors in the court records of these cases. He alleged that he was denied his civil rights and requested a jury trial.
The matter was referred to a magistrate who determined that the petition for removal should be denied. Upon de novo review in light of Elrich's objections, the district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the petition. Petitioner failed to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and, to the extent Elrich sought to present new claims, the action was barred by principles of res judicata.
Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is denied and the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.