United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
DOMINIQUE L. BEEKS, Plaintiff,
HMC ASSETS, LLC, et al., Defendants.
MORALES HOWARD UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE is before the Court on the Report &
Recommendation (Doc. 14; Report), entered by the Honorable
Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on
September 5, 2019. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends
that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, which the Court construes as
a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2;
Motion), be denied, and that this case be dismissed without
prejudice. See Report at 1, 6-7. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge determined that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report on September 24, 2019. See
Plaintiff Objection and Response to Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 16; Objections). In the Objections, Plaintiff continues
to argue the substance of her claims. Significantly,
Plaintiff argues that the “reasonable questions
presented” in this lawsuit include whether this Court
should “vacate” the “amendend [sic]
complaint to foreclose mortgage, ” and whether the
foreclosure sale is “null, void and unconstitutional
under state law.” See id. at 5-6. Plaintiff
does not, however, identify any factual errors in the Report.
Nor does she address or object to the Magistrate Judge's
recommended legal conclusion that this matter is barred by
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
addition, on August 30, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)).
See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 13;
Motion). In the Motion, Defendants argue, inter
alia, that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See
Motion at 6-7. Plaintiff responded to the Motion on September
10, 2019. See Plaintiff Objection to Defendants
Motion to Dismiss Complaint for the Conversion of Property
Case (Doc. 15; Response). As with her Objections, Plaintiff
does not address the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine and continues to argue that the underlying decision
of Florida's First District Court of Appeal was in error.
See id. at 1-5. Indeed, Plaintiff requests that this
Court “reinstate” a prior order of the state
court, and vacate the “certificate of sale, ”
“certificate of title, ” and “final
judgment of mortgage foreclosure” due to
“egregious errors throughout the case.”
Id. at 15-16.
Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the finding or recommendations by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific
objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court
is not required to conduct a de novo review of those
findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779
n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal
conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v.
Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007
WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the
Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will overrule the
Objections and accept and adopt the legal and factual
conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Because the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this action is
due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court will
also grant Defendants' Motion on that
basis. Accordingly, it is hereby
1. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 16) are
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation
(Doc. 14) is ADOPTED as set forth in this
3. The Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Doc. 2), construed as a
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, is
4. Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
the Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.
5. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint (Doc. 13) is GRANTED to the extent
set forth above.
6. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
7. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending
motions and deadlines as moot and close the file.