Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01723/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01723-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tawana Jean Cooper
Appellant
John T. Frey
Appellee
Nelson L. Knott
Appellee
Pamela A. Varouxis
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1723

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:16-cv-00025-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tawana Jean Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arthur Sottolano, 

CHADWICK WASHINGTON MORIARTY ELMORE & BUNN PC, Glen Allen, 

Virginia; Alexander Francuzenko, Philip Corliss Krone, COOK 

CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1723 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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 postjudgment 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 (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.

Appeal: 16-1723 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 2