Hekyong Pak v. Delores Ridgell ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2083
HEKYONG PAK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DELORES RIDGELL, Assistant Bar Counsel for Attorney
Grievance Commission of Maryland; ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE
COMMISSION OF MARYLAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-01421-RDB)
Submitted: April 23, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert S. Catz, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Douglas F.
Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, Steven M. Sullivan, H.
Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hekyong Pak appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing her action against the Defendants and denying her
motion to reconsider the dismissal of her civil action. Pak
sought to overturn her state disbarment and alleged
improprieties regarding that proceeding. On appeal, Pak raises
two issues: (1) whether the district court erred in finding that
part of her suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; ∗ and
(2) whether State Bar Counsel Delores Ridgell was protected by
immunity. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, we find no error in the district court’s
application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in declining to
reconsider Pak’s disbarment. Exxon_Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); Davani v. Va. Dep’t of
Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 715-16 (4th Cir. 2006). Second, we find
that the district court properly found Ridgell to be immune from
suit for her participation in Pak’s disciplinary proceedings.
Gill v. Ripley, 724 A.2d 88, 96 (Md. 1999). Finally, to the
extent Pak challenges the denial of her motion to reconsider, we
find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Robinson v.
∗
See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486
(1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).
2
Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010)
(providing review standard).
Accordingly, we affirm both orders for the reasons
stated by the district court. Pak v. Ridgell, No. 1:10-cv-
01421-RDB (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2011 & Sept. 12, 2011). We deny Pak’s
motion to vacate the Clerk’s order denying her motion for leave
to file an addendum to her reply brief. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3