UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DESMOND GIRARD WALTERS,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

09-CV-13294

vs.

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

BOARD OF COUNSELING, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is presently before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss the

complaint [docket entry 6]. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon has submitted a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommends that the motion be granted. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the R&R, and defendants have responded to the objections. The court reviews an R&R

to the extent timely and proper objection have been filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

Distilled to its essence, the 21-page pro se complaint in this matter alleges that

defendants (two state licensing boards and the state departments under which they operate) and a

Michigan assistant attorney general, Robert Jenkins, violated plaintiff’s rights under the Americans

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and various

Michigan statutes by denying his applications for licensure as a professional counselor and social

worker. Plaintiff alleges defendants have denied his repeated applications for these licenses on the

grounds that he has a criminal record consisting of three old misdemeanor convictions and a more

recent felony conviction that was subsequently “nolle prosqued,” all of which in plaintiff’s view

2:09-cv-13294-BAF-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 11/16/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 137
2

should not have been considered. Plaintiff indicates that regarding the administrative denial of his

most recent application he sought review in Genesee County Circuit Court. In a nine-page opinion

dated May 16, 2008 (two pages of which are attached to plaintiff’s objections as Exhibit XVIII),

Judge Neithercut denied plaintiff’s appeal, finding that defendants’ decision was “based upon

competent and substantial evidence” and, further, that plaintiff “failed to meet his burden of proving,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the pertinent requirements for the license or registration

have been satisfied.” Plaintiff indicates that a second lawsuit he filed against defendants in the same

court ended in summary judgment being granted for defendants. For relief in the present case,

plaintiff seeks “a reversal of a Final Denial and order the Boards et. al., to issue both licenses

immediately” and award “substantial Money Damages.” Compl. at 21. 

In their motion to dismiss, defendants argue that the complaint is barred by the

Eleventh Amendment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, res judicata and collateral estoppel. They also

argue that the complaint fails to state a claim under the ADA. Plaintiff did not respond substantively

to defendants’ motion, but he does address some of defendants’ arguments in his objections to the

magistrate judge’s R&R.

Defendants first argue that the complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has explained:

In District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), the Supreme Court

held that federal court review of state court proceedings is

jurisdictionally limited to the Supreme Court of the United States by

28 U.S.C. § 1257. See also Patmon v. Michigan Sup. Ct., 224 F.3d

504, 506 (6th Cir.2000). We refer to this doctrine as the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263

U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). The Feldman Court

stated that “United States District Courts . . . do not have jurisdiction

. . . over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising

2:09-cv-13294-BAF-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 11/16/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 138
1

 The court shall dismiss the complaint against defendant Jenkins for the additional

reason that the complaint makes no mention of Jenkins other than to list him in the caption. 

Moreover, plaintiff conceded at the oral argument on defendants’ motion before the magistrate

judge that he “does not have any claim against Assistant Attorney General Jenkins.” R&R at 9.

3

out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the

state court’s action was unconstitutional. Review of those decisions

may only be had in this Court.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S.Ct.

1303; see also Anderson v. Charter Township of Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d

487, 492 (6th Cir.2001). In a more recent decision, the Supreme

Court restated the doctrine as follows: “under [the doctrine] a party

losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would

be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district

court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself

violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S.

997, 1005-06, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994).

Tropf v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 289 F.3d 929, 936-37 (6th Cir. 2002) (footnote omitted). 

The present case fits squarely within this doctrine. As noted above, plaintiff is asking

this court to review and overturn two decisions of the Genesee County Circuit Court. It does not

matter that plaintiff now seeks to add additional claims (e.g., his ADA claim) which he did not raise

in the state court actions because the relief he seeks in this court could not be granted without

invalidating the state court’s judgments. This is precisely what is prohibited by Rooker-Feldman.

If plaintiff was aggrieved by the state court’s decisions, his remedy was to seek relief in that court

by way of a motion for relief from judgment or order pursuant to MCR 2.612 and/or by appealing

the decisions to the Michigan Court of Appeals. While the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s

analysis of defendants’ other arguments, they need not be addressed because the complaint is barred

by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1

 Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Randon’s Report and Recommendation is

2:09-cv-13294-BAF-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 11/16/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 139
4

accepted and adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint

[docket entry 6] is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s “consolidated motions” [docket entry

8] are denied.

_s/Bernard A. Friedman_________________

BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 16, 2009

Detroit, Michigan

2:09-cv-13294-BAF-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 11/16/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 140