Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tawana Jean COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pamela A. VAROUXIS, Executrix and Trustee of the Theodore Varouxis Estate and Trust; John T. Frey, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Fairfax County, individually and in his official capacity; Nelson L. Knott, Comptroller of the Circuit Court, Fairfax County Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-1723
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 13, 2016
    Decided: October 17, 2016
    Tawana Jean Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arthur Sottolano, Chadwick Washington Moriarty Elmore & Bunn PC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Alexander Francuz-enko, Philip Corliss Krone, Cook Craig & Francuzenko, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tawana Jean Cooper appeals the district court’s orders denying her complaint challenging a state court civil order regarding a property issue and denying her post-judgment motions for reconsideration and to enter default judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cooper v. Varouxis, No. 1:16-cv-00025-CMH-TCB, 2016 WL 2894913 (E.D. Va. filed May 16 & entered May 17, 2016; June 14 & 17, 2016). 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.

AFFIRMED 
      
       To the extent that Cooper seeks damages because she believes that the Defendants committed fraud upon the state court, however, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar her claims. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 172-73 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not deprive district court of jurisdiction in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action alleging that plaintiff's losses in state court action resulted from a conspiracy between the defendants and certain members of the state judiciary). Nonetheless, the district court correctly dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim.