Braswell v. Henkel

Eleventh Circuit

Braswell v. Henkel

160 F. App'x 828

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketNo. 05-10242; D.C. Docket No. 04-21277-CV-PCH

StatusPublished

This text of 160 F. App'x 828 (Braswell v. Henkel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Braswell v. Henkel, 160 F. App'x 828 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A. Glenn Braswell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court dismissed the action pursuant to the Rooker/Feldman doctrine, which bars a federal district court from directly reviewing a final judgment of a state court. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).

Braswell makes two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the Rook-er/Feldman doctrine does not apply to the state trial court’s order denying his motion to disqualify counsel because his constitutional claim is not “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s order. Second, he argues that the district court’s order did not constitute a final judgment for the purposes of the Rooker ¡Feldman doctrine.

We have carefully considered the briefs, and relevant parts of the record, and conclude that Braswell’s arguments are merit-less.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

A. Glenn Braswell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court dismissed the action pursuant to the Rooker/Feldman doctrine, which bars a federal district court from directly reviewing a final judgment of a state court. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).

Braswell makes two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the Rook-er/Feldman doctrine does not apply to the state trial court’s order denying his motion to disqualify counsel because his constitutional claim is not “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s order. Second, he argues that the district court’s order did not constitute a final judgment for the purposes of the Rooker ¡Feldman doctrine.

We have carefully considered the briefs, and relevant parts of the record, and conclude that Braswell’s arguments are merit-less.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 F. App'x 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braswell-v-henkel-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack