doctrine precludes “a party losing in state court ... from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of [a] state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 2654, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). Plaintiff objected to Judge Yanthis’s recommendation that Defendants’ 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss be granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, this Court reviews that recommendation de novo. Plaintiffs claims here are “inextricably intertwined” with his state court claims and thus this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Mackenzie, 375 F.Supp.2d at 319 (<HOLDING>). Further, Plaintiff is asking this Court to
holding rookerfeldman also bars federal claims raised in state court as well as claims that are inextricably intertwined with the statecourt judgment holding that state law claims cannot pend from a federal one over which the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute