Anna Dinardo v. Karen M. Miller

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED

________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-10806 JUNE 14, 2006

Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-80875-CV-WJZ

ANNA DINARDO, AUGUSTA DINARDO, VICTORIA DINARDO,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus

KAREN M. MILLER, Honorable, Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(June 14, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The district court’s final order of dismissal is affirmed. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482–88, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1315–18 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150 (1923); Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2001); Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1172 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, have no authority to review the final judgments of state courts. The doctrine extends not only to constitutional claims presented or adjudicated by a state court, but also to claims that are inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment. A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.