Jaoude v. Hannah , 589 F. App'x 6 ( 2014 )

14-1611
Jaoude v. Hannah
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 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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 22nd day of December, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER,
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 MARIA L. JAOUDE,
13 Plaintiff-Appellant,
14
15 -v.- 14-1611
16
17 MATTHEW E. HANNAH, TIME WARNER CABLE,
18 RITA J. BIONDI,
19 Defendants-Appellees.
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
21
22 FOR APPELLANT: MARIA L. JAOUDE, pro se,
23 Buffalo, New York.
24
25 FOR APPELLEES MATTHEW E.
26 HANNAH AND TIME WARNER
27 CABLE: A. VINCENT BUZARD, Harris Beach
28 PLLC, Pittsford, New York.
1
1 FOR APPELLEE RITA J.
2 BIONDI: MICHAEL T. HAGELIN, Hagelin
3 Kent, LLC, Buffalo, New York.
4
5 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
6 Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.).
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
9 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
10 AFFIRMED.
11
12 Appellant Maria L. Jaoude, pro se, appeals from the
13 order of the United States District Court for the Western
14 District of New York (Telesca, J.), dismissing the case for
15 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’
16 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
17 history, and the issues presented for review.
18
19 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an
20 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, including
21 dismissals under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Hoblock v.
22 Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir.
23 2005). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts
24 lack subject matter jurisdiction to review “cases brought by
25 state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state
26 court judgments rendered before the district court
27 proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and
28 rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
29 Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); see also
30 Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 85.
31
32 The district court properly dismissed the case for lack
33 of subject matter jurisdiction both under the Rooker-Feldman
34 doctrine and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, we
35 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
36
37 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
38 Jaoude’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of
39 the district court.
40
41 FOR THE COURT:
42 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
43
44
2