DIXON
v.
ABRUZZO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss all counts of the Amended Complaint and imposed pre-filing sanctions.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint after a state foreclosure judgment. Defendants moved to dismiss. A Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Quasi-Judicial Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint with Prejudice (the “Motion”), filed on December 22, 2022 [ECF No. 22].
On June 21, 2023, following referral [ECF Nos. 36, 37], Magistrate Judge Matthewman issued a Report (“Report”) recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 54]. Specifically, Judge Matthewman recommends Counts I, II, V, and the unnumbered declaratory judgment action in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to judicial and quasi-judicial immunity [ECF No. 54 p. 33]. The ultimate recommendation in the Report is to dismiss all counts in the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 54]. Judge Matthewman also recommends that the Court impose pre-filing sanctions against Plaintiffs due to Plaintiffs’ continuous filing of frivolous complaints in an effort to undo a state foreclosure judgment [ECF No. 54 pp. 33–34]. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time within which to do so has expired. Upon review, the Court finds the Report to be well-reasoned and correct.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 54] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED for the reasons discussed in the Report.
a. Counts I, II, V, and the unnumbered declaratory judgment in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. b. Counts III and IV in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. 3. Plaintiffs are hereby prohibited from filing or attempting to initiate any new lawsuit in this district or in any federal court in the United States pertaining to the Final Judgment of Foreclosure without first obtaining leave of that federal court. 4. Before Plaintiffs initiate any new lawsuit in this district or in any federal court in the United States pertaining to the Final Judgment of Foreclosure, Plaintiffs are required to file a motion for leave to file a lawsuit, attaching a copy of the proposed lawsuit and a reference to this Order. See Watkins v. Dubreuil, 820 F. App’x 940, 948 (11th Cir. 2020).
5. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.
6. The Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy if this Order to Plaintiffs at the address below. CASE NO. 22-81501-CIV-CANNON/Matthewman
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 6th day of July 2023. iy M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record Blanche L. Dixon 6394 Emerald Dunes Drive Unit 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
PRO SE
Roy J. Dixon, Jr. 6394 Emerald Dunes Drive Unit 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33411