Mills v. Calero

First Circuit

Mills v. Calero

733 F.3d 28, 2013 WL 5737340, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21526

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided October 23, 2013·No. No. 13-1415·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs on appeal and considered the appellant’s arguments. The district court was plainly correct to dismiss the complaint. Mills’s arguments are based on a misapprehension of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), and of issue preclusion, and are without merit. For the reasons set forth in the district court’s order, Mills v. Calero, No. 1:11-cv-00470 (D.Me. Mar. 7, 2013), we summarily affirm. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs on appeal and considered the appellant’s arguments. The district court was plainly correct to dismiss the complaint. Mills’s arguments are based on a misapprehension of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), and of issue preclusion, and are without merit. For the reasons set forth in the district court’s order, Mills v. Calero, No. 1:11-cv-00470 (D.Me. Mar. 7, 2013), we summarily affirm. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

Mills v. Calero, 733 F.3d 28, 2013 WL 5737340, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21526 (1st Cir. 2013).

Pincite

733 F.3d 28 (Mills v. Calero) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related