McDADE, Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Cudmore's Report Recommendation [Doc. #15], which addresses Defendant Drew Erwin's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #17]. Judge Cudmore recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 1999)
Plaintiff has filed her objections to the Report Recommendation. Plaintiff merely requests that Judge Cudmore's Report Recommendation be clarified to reflect that the dismissal is based solely upon the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is correct that the Rooker-Feidman doctrine bars federal trial courts from exercising jurisdiction over claims that seek review of state court judgments. See id. Thus, the Court agrees that the Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court feels that this recommendation is fairly clear in Judge Cudmore's Report, although his conclusion is only that Defendant Erwin's motion "be ALLOWED."
Otherwise, Plaintiff does not object to Judge Cudmore's application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or his conclusion that such doctrine bars her suit against Erwin in this Court. Failure to object constitutes a waiver of any objections. See Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Video Views Inc. v. Studio 21 Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation with the caveat that the Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Drew Erwin's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #7] is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint against Erwin is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.