Spooner v. Gautreaux

Fifth Circuit

Spooner v. Gautreaux

459 F. App'x 436

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

DocketNo. 11-30651

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 459 F. App'x 436 (Spooner v. Gautreaux) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spooner v. Gautreaux, 459 F. App'x 436 (5th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*

The plaintiffs, proceeding pro se in the district court and on appeal, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, attacking various transactions regarding a foreclosure. The magistrate judge issued an extensive report recommending that the district court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction and should dismiss the suit without prejudice. The- district court adopted that recommendation.

We agree with the magistrate judge that abstention is required by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and Health Net, Inc. v. Wooley, 534 F.3d 487 (5th Cir.2008). The judgment of dismissal without prejudice is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge in her report. The motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and to provide additional evidence is DENIED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

*

The plaintiffs, proceeding pro se in the district court and on appeal, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, attacking various transactions regarding a foreclosure. The magistrate judge issued an extensive report recommending that the district court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction and should dismiss the suit without prejudice. The- district court adopted that recommendation.

We agree with the magistrate judge that abstention is required by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and Health Net, Inc. v. Wooley, 534 F.3d 487 (5th Cir.2008). The judgment of dismissal without prejudice is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge in her report. The motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and to provide additional evidence is DENIED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 F. App'x 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spooner-v-gautreaux-ca5-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack