Opinion
Case No. 8:19-cv-1859-T-60AAS
10-03-2019
HOPE EBEH, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing Hope Ebeh's complaint (Doc. 1), the court deferred ruling on Ebeh's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pending Ebeh amending his complaint by September 6, 2019. (Doc. 10). The court deferred ruling based on lack of jurisdiction over this child support enforcement matter. (Id.).
Ebeh moved for reconsideration of the court's order deferring ruling. (Doc. 11). The order denying Ebeh's motion for reconsideration reiterated the court lack of jurisdiction over this matter. (Doc. 12); see Lawton v. Rosen, 559 F. App'x 973, 974 (11th Cir. 2014) (upholding dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman where claims "attacked the validity of the child-support proceedings already litigated in state court and the judgments that resulted from those proceedings"); Gogola v. Zingale, 141 F. App'x 839, 842 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal of a complaint as barred by Rooker-Feldman because the plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of a state's alimony laws was an attempt to reverse state court orders requiring such payments); Mugarra v. General Attorney Office, No. 8:11-CV-1349-T-27MAP, 2011 WL 3629169, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:11-CV-1349-T-27MAP, 2011 WL 3648637 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2011) (dismissing action part on Rooker-Feldman where the plaintiff sought review of child support hearing officer's denial of child support adjustment).
For these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Ebeh's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 8) be DENIED, and the complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED.
ENTERED in Tampa, Florida on October 3, 2019.
/s/_________
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Mr. McClam has fourteen days from the date he is served a copy of this report to file written objections to this report's proposed findings and recommendations or to seek an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. A party's failure to object timely in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives that party's right to challenge on appeal the district court's order adopting this report's unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions. 11th Cir. R. 3-1. cc: Hope Ebeh
11916 Southern Palms Ct
Thonotosassa, Fl 33592