Opinion
Case No.: 4:05cv460-SPM/WCS.
January 4, 2006
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 8) dated December 28, 2005. Plaintiff has been furnished a copy and he has filed objections (doc. 10). Pursuant to Tile 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made. I find that the report of the magistrate judge should be adopted.
Although the precise nature of Plaintiff's complaint still remains unclear, it appears that Plaintiff is asking this Court to either interfere with pending state court proceedings or cast into doubt the validity of state court proceedings that have already been decided. It is not appropriate for a federal district court to do either of these things. See Maharaj v. Secretary for the Dep't of Corrections. 304 F.3d 1345, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 2002) (discussing Younger doctrine); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine). To the extent Plaintiff bases his suit on actions unrelated to his state court proceedings, he has failed to allege that his rights under the laws or the Constitution of the United States were violated under color of state law. See Smartt v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 245 F.Supp. 1229, 1233 (M.D. Fla. 2003). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 8) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. This case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
3. The clerk shall note on the docket that this case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
DONE AND ORDERED.