Dinardo v. Miller

184 F. App'x 865
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided June 14, 2006·No. No. 06-10806·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The district court’s final order of dismissal is affirmed. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-88, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1315-18, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir.2001); Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1172 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, have no authority to review the final judg[866] ments of state courts. The doctrine extends not only to constitutional claims presented or adjudicated by a state court, but also to claims that are inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment. A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

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

Dinardo v. Miller, 184 F. App'x 865 (11th Cir. 2006).

184 F. App'x 865 (Dinardo v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goodman Ex Rel. Goodman v. Sipos
259 F.3d 1327 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
263 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court, 1924)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1983)