Durham v. Wofford, 2:17-cv-02744

Plaintiff Diane Durham filed a complaint seeking relief related to a state-court eviction judgment entered in favor of landlord Peter Wofford.
Durham asked the federal court to remove the state judgment from public records, require lease compliance, and award damages tied to the eviction.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because granting relief would require rejecting the state-court judgment.
The Magistrate noted Durham did not allege the state judgment was procured by fraud, deception, accident, or mistake — an exception sometimes relevant to Rooker–Feldman analysis.
Durham filed a general objection alleging retaliatory conduct by the landlord and citing a lease clause, but she did not challenge the jurisdictional analysis or invoke the fraud exception.
The district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief	Durham argued landlord retaliation and lease violations justify federal relief	Wofford (implicitly) relied on final state-court judgment; federal court cannot review state-court eviction ruling	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman; relief would require rejecting state judgment
Whether an exception to Rooker–Feldman applies (fraud, etc.)	Durham did not assert state judgment procured by fraud, deception, accident, or mistake	No such fraud-based claim alleged	No exception established; Rooker–Feldman bars jurisdiction
Whether plaintiff’s general objections require de novo review	Durham filed a general objection about retaliation but not on jurisdictional grounds	Court treated objection as non-specific and reviewed uncontested portions for clear error	Court applied clear-error review and adopted Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice	Not argued by Durham on jurisdictional grounds	Court found dismissal appropriate under Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of jurisdiction	Complaint dismissed with prejudice; plaintiff may appeal state judgment in state court

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (federal courts cannot act as appellate tribunals to review state-court judgments)
Pieper v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, Inc., 336 F.3d 458 (6th Cir. 2003) (Rooker–Feldman bars lower federal-court appellate review of state-court proceedings)
Int’l Christian Music Ministry Inc. v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, [citation="289 F. App'x 63"] (6th Cir. 2008) (discussing fraud/exception to preclusion of federal review)
Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991) (general objections to a magistrate judge’s report are treated as non-specific and reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (failure to properly file objections constitutes waiver of appeal)