Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Bismark’ Kwaku Torkornoo appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action on the basis of the Rooker-Feld-man * doctrine after finding that Torkor-noo’s claims arose out of or were inextricably intertwined with prior state court proceedings. Subsequent to the district court’s order, we clarified the narrow scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in Thana v. Bd. Of License Commissioners for Charles Cty., 827 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2016), explaining that the doctrine does not apply “if a plaintiff in federal court does not seek review of the state court judgment itself but instead presents an independent claim” that is related to a matter decided by a state court. H. at 320 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Instead, “any tensions between the two proceedings should be managed through the doctrines of preclusion, comity, and abstention.” Id.

Because the district court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis may be inconsistent with our recent clarification, we vacate its order and remand for reconsideration in light of Thana. We deny as moot Appellee Mona-han’s motion to dismiss. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED