MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
This matter was originally filed in the Southern District of New York, but was transferred to this District by an Order of the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge. See June 2005 Order (Dkt. No. 45). Prior to Judge Kaplan's transfer order, a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 43) was issued by the Honorable Andrew J. Peck, then-Chief United States Magistrate Judge of the Southern District,*fn1 recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety. Upon transfer of the case, Judge Kaplan only determined that venue was inappropriate in the Southern District, and he did not rule on the remaining issues addressed in Chief Magistrate Judge Peck's Report and Recommendation, or Plaintiff's objections (Dkt. No. 44). See Judge Kaplan's June 2005 Order (Dkt. No. 45) ("This ruling is without prejudice to the defendants' motion to dismiss and to plaintiff's objections to Judge Peck's reports and recommendations.").
Therefore, as this Court understands the current status of this case, the Report and Recommendation of Judge Peck (Dkt. No. 43) and the objections by Plaintiff*fn2 (Dkt. No. 44) are awaiting a final ruling. The Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections and additional motions that have been filed, for review.
For a complete recitation of the facts, reference is made to Judge Peck's two Reports and Recommendations (Dkt. Nos. 30 & 43),*fn3 and the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1), familiarity with which is presumed.
A. Judge Peck's Report and Recommendation
It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge... may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 43) should be approved, in part, for the reasons stated therein.*fn4
In so adopting the Report and Recommendation in pertinent part, the Court hereby dismisses this case as against all Defendants.*fn5
B. Absolute Judicial Immunity
The Court has reviewed the pending Motion submitted by Defendant Czajka (Dkt. No. 55). Defendant Czajka has already been dismissed as a Defendant in this suit based upon this Court's adoption of Judge Peck's Report and Recommendation, above. Therefore, Defendant Czajka's Motion (Dkt. No. 55) is moot, and is denied as such.*fn6
C. Motion by Defendants Shook, Skype and County of Columbia
The Court has reviewed the pending Motion submitted by Defendants Shook, Skype and County of Columbia (Dkt. No. 56). The issues raised therein, concerning Rooker-Feldman, have been sufficiently addressed in the Report and Recommendation of Judge Peck, and the Defendants have been dismissed from this action based upon this Court's adoption of the Report and Recommendation, such that the present Motion is moot. Therefore, Defendants' Motion (Dkt. No. 56) is denied as moot.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion of his own (Dkt. No. 63), seeking, inter alia, to amend his intimidation and would thus "lose 'that independence without which no judiciary can either be respectable or useful.'"... The absolute immunity of a judge applies "'however erroneous the act may have been, and ...