Filed: Jul. 06, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1213 TODD M. JACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BECKY MOORE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-05-4) Submitted: June 10, 2005 Decided: July 6, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd M. Jack, Appellant Pro S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1213 TODD M. JACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BECKY MOORE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-05-4) Submitted: June 10, 2005 Decided: July 6, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd M. Jack, Appellant Pro Se..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1213
TODD M. JACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BECKY MOORE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-05-4)
Submitted: June 10, 2005 Decided: July 6, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd M. Jack, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Cameron O’Brion, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Todd Michael Jack appeals the district court’s order
dismissing this action under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine* and the
doctrine of judicial immunity. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Jack v. Moore, No. CA-05-4 (E.D.
Va. filed Feb. 22, 2005; entered Feb. 24, 2005). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460
U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923).
- 2 -