The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
Friday, 05 August, 2011 11:20:59 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
On July 6, 2011, a Report & Recommendation [#29] was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case, recommending that Defendant Judges Stephan Kouri and Richard McCoy be dismissed. Plaintiff Amy Elise Eckardt ("Eckardt") filed a timely response to the Report & Recommendation [#30]. For the reasons set forth below, the Report & Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Judges Stephan Kouri and Richard McCoy are dismissed.
The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff brought this litigation alleging that (1) Defendant Judge Richard McCoy ("McCoy") violated Eckardt's constitutional rights throughout the state court proceedings adjudicating her parental rights, and (2) Defendant Judge Stephen Kouri ("Kouri") was aware of and accountable for McCoy's actions. Plaintiff commenced the present litigation by filing a Complaint [#1] on January 11, 2009.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Supplemental Complaint [#14] on April 29, 2011. Defendants McCoy and Kouri filed their Motion to Dismiss [#18] on May 11, 2011, and that matter was fully briefed. Magistrate Judge Cudmore entered his Report & Recommendation [#29] on July 6, 2011, and Plaintiff filed a timely Motion to Reconsider [#75] on July 18, 2011. The deadline for additional responses has passed, and this Order follows.
A district court reviews de novo any portion of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which written objections have been made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
Plaintiff's Response to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation essentially takes issues with the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the application of judicial immunity. In so much as Plaintiff raises additional arguments not related to the Magistrate Judge's Order, these arguments are not appropriate at this time.
I. Rooker-Feldman doctrine
In general, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal claims that are so "inextricably intertwined with the state-court judgment [such that] the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it." Gorzelanczyk v. Baldassone, 29 Fed.Appx. 402, 403 (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 (1987)). ...