U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2006

Dinardo v. Miller

Dinardo v. Miller
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided June 14, 2006 · Black, Carnes, Tjoflat
184 F. App'x 865

Counsel

Anna Dinardo, Deerfield Bch, FL, pro se., Augusta Dinardo, Deerfield Bch, FL, pro se., Victoria Dinardo, Deerfield Bch, FL, pro se.

Dinardo v. Miller

Opinion of the Court

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, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (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 judg*866ments 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.