Coleman v. Ward, No. 1:2017cv01746 - Document 11 (D. Md. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 10/31/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 10.31.17)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Coleman v. Ward Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND EDWIN C. COLEMAN v. CARRIE M. WARD * * * * * ****** Civil No. – CCB-17-1746 MEMORANDUM Edwin C. Coleman filed this action to attack the validity of a foreclosure action instituted in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, after having filed several motions and appeals in the Maryland state courts. Defendant trustee Carrie M. Ward has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and Coleman has responded. The motion will be granted. It is difficult to discern the bases for Coleman’s claims. To the extent he states any claim, however, it has or could have been brought in the course of the state court litigation.1 The state courts have ruled against Coleman, and accordingly those claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 156, 162 (4th Cir. 2008). Further, to the extent he seeks to have this court stay the ongoing state court proceedings, Coleman has shown no basis for an exception to the Anti-Inunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. See Employers Resource Management Co., Inc. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1129-30 (4th Cir. 1995). It also appears that Younger abstention is warranted. Id. at 1134-35. A separate order effecting the ruling made in this memorandum is being entered herewith. Date: October 31, 2017 1 ______________/S/______________ Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge Any TILA claim would be time-barred. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
