EASTERLING v. CRAWFORD, 3:14cv226. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160119c30
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2015
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #44) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #45) OVERRULED; THIRD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (DOC. #43) OVERRULED WALTER H. RICE , District Judge . For reasons more than adequately set forth by the United States Magistrate Judge in his March 2, 2015, Report and Recommendations (Doc. #44) and, further, by the Magistrate Judge in Plaintiff's many other numer
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #44) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #45) OVERRULED; THIRD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (DOC. #43) OVERRULED WALTER H. RICE , District Judge . For reasons more than adequately set forth by the United States Magistrate Judge in his March 2, 2015, Report and Recommendations (Doc. #44) and, further, by the Magistrate Judge in Plaintiff's many other numero..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #44) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #45) OVERRULED; THIRD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (DOC. #43) OVERRULED
WALTER H. RICE, District Judge.
For reasons more than adequately set forth by the United States Magistrate Judge in his March 2, 2015, Report and Recommendations (Doc. #44) and, further, by the Magistrate Judge in Plaintiff's many other numerous filings, as well as upon the previous reasoning set forth by the Court, both in written form and in oral fashion in other matters filed by Plaintiff, said judicial filing is adopted in its entirety and Plaintiff's Objections thereto (Doc. #45) are OVERRULED. The Plaintiff's Third Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. #43) is OVERRULED.
As succinctly stated as is possible, Plaintiff's Third Motion for Relief from Judgment fails for the identical reasons as the First and Second incarnations of same as well as the Complaint failed, to wit: judicial immunity, res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. No matter how many times Plaintiff's wishes to argue to the contrary, Federal Question Jurisdiction simply does not "trump" the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine and/or the Supremacy Clause.
Source: Leagle
