IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

HENRY N. HARPER, A638-859

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:11-cv-1116 

 Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge King

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS,

et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that defendants, a state court and the

three state appellate court judges who apparently rejected plaintiff’s

criminal appeal, “did not represent their elected positions very

seriously or professionally, or administer proper justice that their

positions require.” Complaint, Doc. No. 1-2, p.3. Plaintiff seeks

monetary damages. This matter is now before the Court for the initial

review of the Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A.

This Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain

plaintiff’s claims by operation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

The Rooker–Feldman doctrine divests “lower federal courts ...

from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments,”

Marks v. Tennessee, 554 F.3d 619, 622 (6th Cir.2009) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted), “[b]ecause [28 U.S.C.] § 1257, as long

interpreted, vests [federal] authority to review a state court's judgment

solely in [the Supreme] Court.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.

Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292 (2005). The doctrine applies to the “narrow

Case: 2:11-cv-01116-GLF-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 12/19/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
ground” of “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries

caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court

proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection

of those judgments.” Id. at 284. If the source of the plaintiff's injury

is the state-court judgment itself, then the Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars

the federal claim. Id. “If there is some other source of injury, such as

a third party's actions, then the plaintiff asserts an independent

claim.” Id.; see also Lawrence v. Welch, 531 F.3d 364, 368–69 (6th

Cir.2008); Hamilton v. Herr, 540 F.3d 367, 372 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating

that “what the Rooker–Feldman doctrine primarily bars are claims that

seek relief from injury ‘caused by’ the state court judgment”) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s Complaint invites this Court to review – and

reject – the state appellate court judgment. This Court lacks

jurisdiction to do so.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and

serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 

F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de

2

Case: 2:11-cv-01116-GLF-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 12/19/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision

of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

DATE: December 19, 2011

3

Case: 2:11-cv-01116-GLF-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 12/19/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>