Campisi v. Maffeo ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

          September 15, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1572



                                  CONSTANCE CAMPISI,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                           ANGELA C. MAFFEO, ETC., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Constance Campisi on brief pro se.
_________________

            Antonette S.  Fernandez, William H.  Carroll and  Dillon & Carroll
_______________________  ___________________      ________________

        on brief for appellee Angela C. Maffeo, Trustee.

            Timothy E. Sterritt on brief for appellee Alphonse A. Scott.
___________________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







































































































































































                      Per Curiam.  The district court correctly dismissed
__________



            plaintiff's  action for lack of federal jurisdiction.  To the



            extent  plaintiff wanted  the  district court  to review  the



            correctness  of the state court decisions, plaintiff's action



            was  properly  dismissed  because lower  federal  courts lack



            jurisdiction  to review  state  court judgments.   Rooker  v.
______



            Fidelity Trust  Co.,  263  U.S. 413  (1923).  To  the  extent
___________________



            plaintiff wanted the district court to hear and determine the



            merits  of  her  controversies  with  defendants   and  their



            predecessors  in title,  the  action was  properly  dismissed



            because  plaintiff's disputes, as described in her complaint,



            amended  complaint, and  other papers,  are not  the type  of



            matters over which federal courts have jurisdiction.
_______



                      Affirmed.
________



















































                                         -3-