Opinion
Case No. 1:16-cv-778
08-16-2017
DARRYN NICOLE JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 61)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on May 17, 2017, submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 61). Plaintiff filed objections on May 31, 2017.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' objections and finds that they are not well taken. The Report and Recommendations thoroughly explains why each of Plaintiffs' claims is subject to dismissal; some claims are subject to issue preclusion due to previous cases, some claims are barred by the Rooker Feldman doctrine as an inappropriate attempt to have this Court conduct appellate review of an unfavorable state court judgment, see Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 41516 (1923), and D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-87 (1983), and some claims are simply without merit per the standards imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The well-reasoned Report and Recommendations speaks for itself. Plaintiffs' objections fail to address the points raised in the Report and Recommendations. The long and rambling objections, when decipherable, appear mainly to reiterate the same claims as Plaintiff's initial complaint. --------
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 35, 37) are GRANTED;
2) All additional pending motions (Docs. 49, 51, 54, 55, 58, 59, 67, 68) are DENIED AS MOOT;
3) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case shall be CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 8/16/17
s/ Timothy S . Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge