[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12565

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01401-CEH-GJK

DEWEY MITCHELL LINDSAY, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ADOPTION BY SHEPHERD CARE, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 7, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-12565 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Dewey Mitchell Lindsay, proceeding pro se,

1 appeals the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment in favor of Adoption by Shepherd Care, Inc., in his

action alleging constitutional violations arising from a state court parental rights 

termination proceeding. We construe his arguments on appeal as a challenge to the 

district court’s determination that Lindsay’s claim he was denied a right to counsel 

in the state court proceeding, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due 

process rights, was barred by the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine. 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Johnson v. Governor of 

Fla., 405 F.3d 1214, 1217 (11th Cir. 2005). Whether a plaintiff’s complaint is 

barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a legal question that we review de novo. 

Doe v. Fla. Bar, 630 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2011). 

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional rule that precludes lower 

federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 

1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009). The doctrine “precludes a United States district court 

from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction in an action it would otherwise be 

empowered to adjudicate.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 

U.S. 280, 291 (2005). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . is confined to cases of 

the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court 

 1

 Pro se pleadings are construed liberally. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 

1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 

2

 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine derives from Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413

(1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 

Case: 12-12565 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the 

district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and 

rejection of those judgments.” Id. at 284.

The district court did not err in determining the Rooker-Feldman doctrine 

operated to bar Lindsay’s federal action. Lindsay’s continued insistence that his 

federal case is actually an “appeal” of the state court parental rights termination 

proceeding makes clear this is the type of case precluded by the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine. As to his remaining claims, Lindsay offers no specific argument with 

respect to the district court’s order dismissing, for failure to state a claim, his Fifth 

and Sixth Amendment claims and challenge to the constitutionality of Chapter 63, 

Florida Statutes, and accordingly has waived those challenges. See Greenbriar, 

Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining 

issues not raised on appeal are deemed waived). Thus, we affirm the judgment of 

the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-12565 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 3 of 3