11-5140 Shrestha v. Lelin

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 15th day of November, two thousand twelve.

6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 REENA RAGGI, 11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________ 14 Manohar Shrestha, Renu Shrestha, 16 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 18 v. 11-5140 20 Ross Lelin, 22 Defendant-Appellee.

23 _____________________________________ 26 FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Manohar Shrestha, pro se, 27 and Renu Shrestha, pro se, 28 Manorville, NY.

1 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Ross Lelin, pro se, 2 Freeport, NY.

4 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Batts, J.).

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

10 Appellants Manohar Shrestha and Renu Shrestha, pro se, appeal the sua sponte dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

17 Upon such review, we conclude that the Shresthas’ appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned order. Shrestha v. Lelin, No. 11-cv-4851 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2011). We have considered all of the Shresthas’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

24 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

27 FOR THE COURT: 28 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk