From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dixon v. Falcon Heights Condo. Ass'n

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Nov 26, 2013
No. 1:12-cv-0439-CL (D. Or. Nov. 26, 2013)

Opinion

No. 1:12-cv-0439-CL

11-26-2013

JIM (JAMES) DIXON, Plaintiff, v. FALCON HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

PANNER, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Although no objections have been filed, this court reviews legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983).

After reviewing the file, I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that plaintiff s claims are barred by claim preclusion and by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, I adopt the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#73) is adopted. Defendants' motions for summary judgment (#46, #49) are granted. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (#53) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Dixon v. Falcon Heights Condo. Ass'n

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Nov 26, 2013
No. 1:12-cv-0439-CL (D. Or. Nov. 26, 2013)
Case details for

Dixon v. Falcon Heights Condo. Ass'n

Case Details

Full title:JIM (JAMES) DIXON, Plaintiff, v. FALCON HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

Date published: Nov 26, 2013

Citations

No. 1:12-cv-0439-CL (D. Or. Nov. 26, 2013)

Citing Cases

Benson v. Energy Solutions, Inc.

In fact, "[t]he Supreme Court has ruled that a federal court must give a state court judgment 'the same…