Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02294/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02294-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2294

___________

Guy Moon, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Chicot County Arkansas Legal * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Associates, An informal enterprise *

affecting interstate commerce; Thomas * [UNPUBLISHED]

D. Deen; David F. Gillison, Jr.; Fred W. * 

Hensley; Gill R. Holloway; Charles F. *

Poole; Stephen Tisdale; Robert C. *

Vittitow, Individual predicate actors *

who either committed or aided and *

abetted violations of law including *

fraud, extortion, and mail fraud, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-2294 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022531
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

2

See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 

-2-

Guy Moon appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing his civil complaint,

wherein he asserted claims of fraud and racketeering against defendants for their

alleged role in thwarting Moon’s challenge to the sale of certain real property in

Chicot County, Arkansas. Following careful review, we agree with the district court

that Moon’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman2

 doctrine. See Exxon Mobil

Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 289, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521-22 (2005).

We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Moon’s recusal motion, and no

error in the district court’s consideration of matters outside the pleadings. See

Trammel v. Simmons First Bank of Searcy, 345 F.3d 611, 612-13 (8th Cir. 2003);

Harris v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc., 339 F.3d 635, 637-38 & n.4 (8th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2294 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022531