Mills v. Calero
This text of Mills v. Calero (Mills v. Calero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 13-1415
DAVID MILLS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
LYNNE CALERO, DOUGLAS MILLETT, MARY C. MAYHEW,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge, Stahl and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Joseph M. Baldacci on brief for appellant. Thomas A. Knowlton on brief for appellees.
October 23, 2013 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
(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).
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mills v. Calero, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-calero-ca1-2013.