Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mendonca v. Wintersen, 99-1905 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 99-1905 Visitors: 42
Filed: Dec. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: and Lipez, Circuit Judge., Robin Aaronson Maher and Segalini Neville on brief for, appellee. See District, of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, (1983) ([A] United States District Court has no authority to, review final judgments of a state court in judicial, proceedings.
USCA1 Opinion


       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit





No. 99-1905

SHARON HUGHES MENDONCA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

AMY O'BRIEN WINTERSEN,

Defendant, Appellee.



APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]



Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,
Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.





Sharon Hughes Mendonca on brief pro se.
Robin Aaronson Maher and Segalini & Neville on brief for
appellee.





December 27, 1999





Per Curiam. After a thorough review of the record
and the submissions of the parties, we affirm for the reason
stated by the district court in its Order dated July 27, 1999.
Furthermore, the district court also lacked subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See District
of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476
(1983) ("[A] United States District Court has no authority to
review final judgments of a state court in judicial
proceedings."); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,
415-16 (1923) (same).
Affirmed. 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer