[DO NOT PUBLISH]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) Be fore TJOFLAT , JORDAN and BLACK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-12565 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 1 of 32 Dewey Mitchell Lindsay, proceeding pro se , 1 appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ad option by Shepherd Care, Inc. , i n his action alleging constitutional violations arising from a state court parental rights termination proceeding. We construe his argument s 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

- Feldman 2 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 complai nt is barred by the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine is a legal question that we review de novo

. Doe v. Fl a. 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 j urisdiction 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 nam e: 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 33 losers complaining of injuries caused by state

- court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of thos e judgments.” Id. at 284.
T he district court d id not err in determin ing the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine operated to bar Lindsay’s federal action

. Lindsay’s continued insistence that his federal case is actual ly 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 cha llenge 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
i ssues not raised on appeal are deemed waived )

. T hus, w e affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED. Case: 12-12565 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 3 of 3