[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FILED

________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10242 December 20, 2005

Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-21277-CV-PCH A. GLENN BRASWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TIMOTHY D. HENKEL, individually, SCOTT SILVER, individually, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

( December 20, 2005) Before BLACK, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

A. Glenn Braswell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court dismissed the action pursuant to the Rooker/Feldman doctrine, which bars a federal district court from directly reviewing a final judgment of a state court. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923).

Braswell makes two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the Rooker/Feldman doctrine does not apply to the state trial court’s order denying his motion to disqualify counsel because his constitutional claim is not “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s order. Second, he argues that the district court’s order did not constitute a final judgment for the purposes of the Rooker/Feldman doctrine.

We have carefully considered the briefs, and relevant parts of the record, and conclude that Braswell’s arguments are meritless.

AFFIRMED.

2