Sullivan v. Town of Derry, Public Works Dept., No. 9:2014cv00033 - Document 5 (D. Mont. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 4 Order, Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 4/14/2014. (APP, ) Copy mailed to Sullivan.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sullivan v. Town of Derry, Public Works Dept. Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION BILLY BUDD SULLIVAN, FILED APR 14 2014 Clerk. U.S District Court District Of Montana Missoula CV 14-33-M-DWM-JCL Plaintiff, ORDER vs. TOWN OF DERRY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT., Defendant. Plaintiff Billy Budd Sullivan is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Sullivan submitted a document to the Court he titled as "APPEAL," in which he stated he would like to appeal his "case [... Jthat is in the New Hampshire Supreme Court[.]" (Doc. 1 at 1.) Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch recommends this action be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. (Doc. 4.) Sullivan has not filed objections to Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation. The Court reviews the findings and recommendations that are not specifically objected to for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error 1 Dockets.Justia.com exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422,427 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court finds no clear error with Judge Lynch's determination that this case is barred by either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041,1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine "stands for the relatively straightforward principle that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear de facto appeals from state court judgments. "), or if the matter before the New Hampshire Supreme Court is still ongoing, the Younger doctrine, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,43-45 (1971). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISNIISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Dated this -'d-~ day of April, 2014. 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.
