Charles A. Stampelos

“There is a genuine dispute of material fact on these issues and Defendant Sikes' motion for summary judgment should be denied.”

“In light of the dispute of material fact, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be denied as well.”

“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an eighth amended complaint, doc. 209, be DENIED and this case be remanded for further proceedings.”

“It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 40, be DENIED because the proposed fourth amended complaint, ECF No. 40-1, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that all four of Defendants' recent motions, ECF Nos. 54-57, be DENIED and Plaintiff should be required to submit a proposed form of foreclosure judgment within 30 days.”

“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint, doc. 1, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), because it is barred by res judicata, and the motion for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, doc. 3, be DENIED.”

A Report and Recommendation on initial review of a pro se complaint seeking to undo state-court garnishment and foreclosure judgments. Judge Stampelos recommended sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars a federal district court from reviewing and rejecting state-court judgments, and alternatively as barred by res judicata because the plaintiff's claims against a state judge had twice been dismissed.

A short Report and Recommendation in a habeas matter where the petitioner failed to file an amended petition and in forma pauperis application after being ordered to do so. Judge Stampelos recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, while noting that the fourteen-day objection period would also give the petitioner a final opportunity to show good cause.

A short order accepting a pro se inmate's notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because no defendant had been served, the dismissal was effective without a court order and the case was closed as a procedural disposition.

“Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Respondent's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, be GRANTED, and Petitioner's § 2254 petition, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as it is an unauthorized successive petition.”

“Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Respondent's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15, be GRANTED, and Petitioner's § 2254 petition, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as it is an unauthorized successive petition.”

“In light of Respondents' showing that Petitioner has been released from detention, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, be GRANTED, and the § 2241 petition be DISMISSED as moot since Petitioner has been granted the relief sought in the petition.”

“It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 8, be GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”