Greenberg v. Martin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DANIEL S. GREENBERG,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE ANNE C. MARTIN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:24-cv-01430
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Luke Evans
(“R&R”) (Doc. No. 43). The R&R recommends that Metro’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 30) be
granted, that this case be dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and that Greenberg’s remaining pending motions (Doc. Nos. 27, 33, 35, 39) be denied
as moot. 	Greenberg objects because the R&R (1) fails to determine whether the Complaint
contains any claims independent of the state-court judgments (Doc. No. 44 at 3–4); (2) fails to
separately consider whether the California guardian-ad-litem order was procured through fraud or
entered without Due Process (id. at 4–5); and (3) incorrectly concludes that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction notwithstanding his remaining arguments concerning judicial immunity,
recusal, and related issues (id. at 5–7). 	He also objects to the R&R’s recommendation that his
remaining pending motions be denied as moot. (Id. at 7).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which Greenberg
objects. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). For the reasons below, the objections
will be overruled, the R&R adopted, and this case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Case 3:24-cv-01430 Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Greenberg concedes that the R&R correctly concludes that this Court lacks jurisdiction
over his claims seeking to declare state-court orders void, restore his parental rights, recover
property distributed through the state proceedings, or otherwise overturn the California and
Tennessee judgments. (Doc. No. 44 at 2–3). Instead, Greenberg first asks the Court to determine
whether the Complaint contains some unidentified claim that is independent of those judgments.
(Id. at 3–4). 	Yet Greenberg never identifies that claim survives the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
what injury exists apart from the state-court judgments, or what relief this Court could award
without reviewing and rejecting those judgments. The Court declines Greenberg’s invitation to
search the Complaint for a hypothetical claim that he does not identify. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Greenberg’s alleged injuries arise from the state-court proceedings and that
the relief he seeks necessarily requires review and rejection of the resulting judgments.
Greenberg next argues that the Court should separately consider whether the California
guardian-ad-litem order was procured through fraud or entered without Due Process. (Id. at 4–5).
That objection likewise fails. The Complaint does not plausibly allege an injury independent of
the state-court judgment. Rather, Greenberg alleges that the California court entered the guardian-
ad-litem order without notice, a hearing, or constitutionally adequate process and repeatedly asks
this Court to declare that order—and every subsequent order following from it—void. 	Those
allegations amount to a challenge to the validity of the state-court judgment itself. Recasting that
challenge as fraud or a Due Process violation does not avoid the jurisdictional bar.
Plaintiff’s 	remaining 	objections 	concerning 	judicial 	immunity, 	recusal, 	or 	judicial
assignments do not undermine the R&R’s Rooker-Feldman analysis. 	Because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot reach those issues. Accordingly, the Court also agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that Greenberg’s remaining pending motions are moot.
Case 3:24-cv-01430 Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 44) are OVERRULED. The R&R (Doc. No. 43) is
ADOPTED. 	Metro’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 30) is GRANTED, and this action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s
remaining pending motions (Doc. Nos. 27, 33, 35, 39) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-01430 Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>