HILL

v.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 7, and the objections, ECF No. 8. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. The plaintiff’s rambling objections are difficult to understand. Most have nothing to do with this case or with the recommendation for dismissal. The plaintiff seems to challenge a child-custody award by a state court. But he alleges no facts that show or even suggest the award violated federal law in any respect. More fundamentally, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts cannot hear “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.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). See also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462 (1983). For these reasons and those set out in the report and recommendation, IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s further opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on June 2, 2020. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge