EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NAOMI C. HAMILTON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-CV-1582-JPS-JPS v.

DUJUAN BECK and JENNIFER E. ORDER LEHNER,

Defendants.

On October 17, 2025, Plaintiff Naomi C. Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants DuJuan Beck (“Beck”) and Jennifer E. Lehner (“Lehner”).1 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss a state criminal case against her because there is no probable cause without her ex-partner’s lies. Id. at 4. On October 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin screened Plaintiff’s complaint and issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 5. Magistrate Judge Duffin noted that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter under either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 5–6 (citing

, 1332). Even if there were subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Duffin concluded that this case would warrant dismissal for failure to state a claim.

at 6–7. As explained, the Court is precluded from intervening in a state criminal case pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,

(quoting Lance v. Dennis,

(2006) (citing Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.,

1The second defendant’s name was docketed as “Lehmer,” but the complaint spells the name as “Lehner.” The Clerk of Court shall update the docket (1923) and D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman,

(1983))), and/or the Younger abstention doctrine,

at 7 (citing Milchtein v. Chisholm,

(7th Cir. 2018) (discussing Younger v. Harris,

(1971)). Magistrate Judge Duffin ordered that any written objections to the recommendation be filed within fourteen days of service of the recommendation pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

. Plaintiff has not timely objected to the R&R. That being the case, and seeing no independent reason to depart from the R&R, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Duffin’s recommendation and order that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp.,

, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Tf no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error”); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, 1983 Amendment (“the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 5, be and the same is hereby ADOPTED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 26th day of November, 2025. \ □ □□□ ) J.P. Stach ueller U.S» Disttict Judge Page 2 of 2