Beck v. Leary, No. 2:2017cv00420 - Document 11 (S.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting 2 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 10/31/17. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF

Beck v. Leary Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Sean W. Beck, Plaintiff, V. Michael Leary, Case No. 2:17-cv-420 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Deavers Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Sean W. Beck ("Plaintlfr) is a federal inmate proceeding pro se. He filed this action to seek review of a final state court judgment that granted the adoption petition relating to PiaintifTs claimed bioiogicai child. Magistrate Judge King issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") granting Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperls ("IFP") but, after conducting an initial screening of his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), recommending dismissal of Plaintiffs action for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction. R&R, EOF No. 2. Specificaiiy, Magistrate Judge King concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests this Court of Jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiffs claims seeking relief from the effect of a state court Judgment, /of. at 2. Plaintiff objects. ECF No. 8. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) provides that "[wjithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and Dockets.Justia.com recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Plaintiff makes two objections to Magistrate Judge King's findings. First, Plaintiff asserts that he did not file his Complaint until after the Court issued the R&R, and therefore, the Court made its recommendation without a proper review of his Complaint. This objection is not well taken. Plaintiff attached to his motion for leave to proceed IFP a copy of his Complaint and exhibits to the Complaint. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge King was able to properly review Plaintiffs entire Complaint before making her recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e). Second, Plaintiff avers that this Court does have jurisdiction to hear his claims for due process violations allegedly caused by the decisions of the Ohio state courts. This objection is meritless. Plaintiffs Complaint "request[s] permission ... to bring action [sic] from states [sic] court to the federal courts" and alleges that the "trial court, appeals court, and the the [sic] Supreme Court of Ohio" violated Plaintiffs due process rights by terminating his parental rights without clear and convincing evidence that his child was permanently neglected. Compl., ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 6. Plaintiff also alleges that the state appellate court improperly ruled on the adoption petition without reviewing the transcripts of the probate court. Id. at PAGEID # 7. Plaintiff essentially seeks a review of a final state court judgment. This Court's review of such a judgment is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,462 (1983) ("[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings. A review of such judgments may be had only in [the United States Supreme] Court."): see also Sturgis v. Hayes, 283 F. App'x. 309, 313 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal courts from hearing cases in which "a plaintiff asserts... that a state court judgment itself was unconstitutional or in violation of federal law" (quoting McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382, 395 (6th Cir. 2006)). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objection, ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. nCHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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.