[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 58 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cv -0 03 55 -UA-DNF

ROBERT MC SPARI N, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us BARBARA A. MCSPARI N, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 7, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ro be rt M cSp ari n, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di sm is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai nt Case: 12-11581 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 1 of 7ag ai ns t h is ex -wif e, Barb ara M cSp ari n (“ Barb ara” ), br ou gh t u nd er 3 8 U.S.C. § 5 30 1, t he Uni fo rm edServ ic es Fo rm er Sp ou se s’ Pro te ct io n Act(“ FSPA” ), 10 U.S.C. § 1 40 8, the Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Actof 1 99 0 (“ ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 01 et

seq . , andst at e la w. On ap pe al , McSp ari n c ha ll en ge s t he di st ric t co urt’s
co nc lu si on th athi s cl ai m s wer e b arre d b y th e Roo ker -Feldma n do ct rin e. Fo r th e 1
reas on s s ta te d b el ow, we af firm . I. McS pa rin ’s com

pl ai ntall eg edth e fo ll owi ng fact s. Mc Sp ari n, a c om pl et el y di sabl edve te ran who was re cei vi ng di sabi li ty ben efi ts fro m th e fed eral go ve rn m en t, fi le d ape ti ti on fordi vo rce a ga in stBarb ara i n aFlo rid a co ur t i n 2 00 4. The parti es en te redin to a m ed ia te d s et tl em en t ag reem en t, i n wh ic h M cSp ari n ag reedto pa y

pe rm an en t p eri od ic ali m on y , andhi s v et eran be ne fit s wer e co ns id eredin de te rm in in g t he am ou ntof a li m on y . McSp ari n c on cl ud edth atth e ag reem en t v io la te d fe de ral an d s ta te law p ro hi bi ti ng th e d iv is io n o f ve te ran s’ di sabi li ty ben efi ts , andhe fil eda m ot io n i n t he st at e tr ia l co ur t t o v acat e th e al im on y requi rem en t, ci ti ng 38 U.S.C. § 5 30 1. Th e tr ia l co ur t d en ie d h is m ot io n, reas on in g t ha t M cSp ari n a gr eedto pa y ali m on y , th atth e so ur ce o f th e al im on y was

Rooke r v. Fid. Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.C t. 149, 68 L .Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court 1 of Appeals v. Fe ldman , 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.C t. 1303, 75 L .Ed.2d 206 (1983). 2 Case: 12-11581 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 2 of 7en ti rel y

up to hi m , andth atth e co ur t d idno t v io la te “ an y Fed eral Law” in
en fo rci ng th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t. Subs eque nt ly, McS pa rin fil eda m ot io n fo r
m od ifi cat io n o f al im on y , aga in cit in g § 53 01 , bu t t he tri al co ur t re fu se d t o g ran t th e rel ie f he reque st ed . McSp ari n app eal edth is de ci si on to th e Fl or id a ap pe ll at e co urt, wh ic h a ffi rm edwit ho utanop in io n. He t he n app eal edto th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, wh ic h d is m is se d t he ap pe al on Decem be r 15 , 20 10 , wit h a
m an da te th atno m ot io n fo r reh eari ng wou ldbe en te rta in ed
. Inhi s fe de ral co m

pl ai nt , fil edon Ju ne 21 , 20 11 , McSp ari n a ll eg edth at Barb ara a ndth e Fl or id a co urts ig no redfed eral an d s ta te law b y co ns id eri ng hi s di sabi li ty ben efi ts inde te rm in in g t he am ou ntof a li m on y to be pa ideach m on th
. Sp eci fic al ly, he all eg eda vi ol at io n o f 38 U.S.C. § 5 30 1, t he ADA, anda Fl or id a st atut e reg ard in g t he pro te ct io n o f di sabl edve te ran s. He al so m en ti on edth e FSPA, b utdi d n otex pl ic it ly ass erta cl ai m forrel ie f un de r th atst atut e. McSp ari n reque st edde cl arat ory

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f, as well as v ari ou s u ns pe ci fie d da m ag es , andhe ask edth e d is tri ctco ur t t o re ve rs e th e Fl or id a co ur t’s d eci si on on th e am ou ntof a li m on y

he was re qu ire d t o p ay . Barb ara f il edanam en de d m ot io n t o d is m is s t he co m pl ai nt , arg ui ng , in rel ev an t p art , th atMcSp ari n’s cl ai m s wer e b arre d b y th e Roo ker -Feldma n do ct rin e be cau se he was a sk in g t he di st ric t co urt t o re vi ew th e st at e co ur t d eci si on an d
3 Case: 12-11581 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 3 of 7ov erru le it . McSp ari n re sp on de d t ha t h is co m pl ai ntdi d n otaskth e d is tri ctco urt t o rev ie w th e st at e co urt d eci si on , bu t o nl y so ug htrel ie f fro m

Barb ara’s di sc riminat io n a ndvi ol at io n o f fed eral laws . He als o c on te nd ed , am on g o th er th in gs , th atth e Fl or id a co urts ig no redfed eral law. The di stric t co urt ag reedwit h B arb ara a ndgra nt edhe r m ot io n t o d is m is s, fin di ng th atitlac ke d ju ris di ct io n o ve r McS pa rin ’s fed eral cla im s u nd er t he Roo ker -Feldma n do ct rin e. The c ou rt t he n d ecl in edto ex erci se supp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er h is st at e la w cla im . McSp ari n n ow ap pe al s. 2 II. W e rev ie w de no vo a di stric t co ur t’s d is m is sa l o f a co m pl ai ntforlac k o f juri sd ic ti on . Ni ch ol

so n v . Sh af

e , 55 8 F .3d12 66 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The Roo ker -Feldma n do ct rin e p ro vi de s t ha t “ lo wer fed eral co urts are p recl ud edfro m ex erci si ng ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ov er fi na l s ta te -co ur t ju dg m en ts .” Id
. at12 68

In his notice of appe al, McSparin spe cified only the district court’s f

inal dismiss al 2 order , but in his brief to this C ourt, he a lso challeng es seve ral of the court’s pr ior order s denying his moti ons for a

defa ult judgment ag ainst Ba

rbar a. B eca

use McSpar in did not mention t hese order s in his noti ce of

appea l, and nothing on the fac e of the notice indicate s his intent to appeal them, we lac k jurisdiction to review those pr ior order s. See W hite v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 664 F.3d 860, 863- 64 (11th Cir. 2011) (statingthat we lac k jurisdiction to review district cour t order s not specified in a

n appellant’ s notice of a

ppeal, “ unless the over

ridingintent to appeal these orde rs is rea dily

appar ent on the fa ce of

the notice” (quotation omitted)). F urthermor e, nowher e in his brief doe s McSparin cha lleng e, or e ven mention, the district cour t’s ref usal to exercise suppleme ntal jurisdiction over his state cla im, and, there fore , he has a bandoned the issue. See Timson v. Sam pson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (statingthat, while we r ead pro sebriefs liber ally , a pro selitigant aba ndons issues that he fa ils to brief on appe al). 4 Case: 12-11581 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 4 of 7(quo ta ti on om it te d) . The Supr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he Roo ker -Feldma n

do ct rin e is co nf

in edto “ cas es bro ug htby stat e-co ur t l os ers co m pl ai ni ng of i nju rie s cau se d b y st at e-co urt ju dg m en ts ren de redbe fo re t he di st ric t co ur t p ro ceed in gs co m m en cedan d i nv it in g d is tri ctco ur t re vi ew an d re jecti on of t ho se jud gm en ts .” Exxo n Mo bi l Co rp . v. Sa ud i Ba si c In du s. Co rp ., 54 4 U.S. 2 80 , 28 4, 1 25 S.Ct
. 15 17 , 15 21 -2 2, 1 61 L.Ed.2d45 4 (2 00 5) ; Ni ch ol so n , 55 8 F .3dat 1 27 4. Th e do ct rin e ap pl ie s t o fe de ral cla im s ra is edin st at e co ur t an d t o c la im s tha t ar e

“ in ex tri cab ly int ertwin ed ” wit h the st at e co ur t ju dg m en t, b utitdo es no t ap pl y to cl ai m s t ha t t he pl ai nt iff

di d n otha ve a reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to ra is e in th e st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs . Ca sa le v. Til lma n , 55 8 F .3d12 58 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ A cl ai m is in ex tri cab ly int ert win edif i t wo ul d e ffec ti ve ly nul li fy th e st at e co ur t jud gm en t, o r itsu ccee ds on ly to t he ex te ntth atth e st at e co ur t wro ng ly deci de d t he is su es .” Id. (ci ta ti on an d q uo ta ti on s o m it te d)
. Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err infin di ng th atth e Roo ker -Feldma n do ct rin e d ep riv editof ju ris di ct io n o ve r McS pa rin ’s laws ui t. Itis un di sp ut edth at McS pa rin lo stin st at e co urt an d tha t t he fin al st at e co ur t ju dg m en t o ccu rredwhen th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d is m is se d h is ap pe al in Decem be r 20 10 , pri orto hi s fil in g t he in st an t co m

pl ai ntinJu ne 20 11
. Se e Ni ch ol so n , 55 8 F .3dat 1 27 9 (h ol di ng th at , forth e Roo ker -Feldma n do ct rin e to ap pl y , th e fed eral su itm us t
5 Case: 12-11581 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 5 of 7co m

m en ce af te r al l s ta te ap pe ll at e p ro ceed in gs ha ve en de d) . Furt he rm or e, in hi s co m pl ai nt , McSp ari n c la im edth atth e st at e co urts in jure d h im by refus in g t o g ran t hi m th e rel ie f he reque st edwit h re sp ectto hi s al im on y pa ym en ts , in vi ol at io n o f fed eral an d s ta te law, an d h e in vi te d t he di st ric t co ur t t o re vi ew an d re ject t he st at e co urt ju dg m en ts . In fa ct , McSp ari n s pe ci fic al ly ask edth e d is tri ctco ur t t o re ve rs e th e Fl or id a co urts ’ de ci si on reg ard in g t he ali m on y paym en ts . Thu s, i n t he word s of Exxo n Mo bi l , McSp ari n was a “ st at e-co ur t l os er[] com pl ai ni ng of i nju rie s cau se d b y st at e-co urt ju dg m en ts ren de redbe fo re t he di st ric t co ur t p ro ceed in gs co m m en cedan d i nv it in g d is tri ctco ur t re vi ew an d re jecti on of t ho se jud gm en ts .” Se e Exxo n Mo bi l Co rp . , 54 4 U.S. at28 4, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 52 1- 22
. Eve n i f McS pa rin ha d fa il edto rai se so m e o f hi s cu rren t fe de ral cla im s i n st at e co urt, t hi s wo ul d n otpre cl ud e th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e Roo ker -Feldma n do ct rin e. Se e Ca sa le , 55 8 F .3dat 1 26 0. Hi s cl ai m s wer e in ex tri cab ly int ert win ed wit h t he st at e co urt ju dg m en t b ecau se , by rai si ng th em inth e d is tri ctco ur t, h e es se nt ia ll y

so ug htto nu ll ify the st at e co ur t d eci si on reg ard in g h is ali m on y pa ym en ts , andno th in g s ug ge st s t ha t h e la ck eda reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to ra is e al l of hi s cl ai m s i n s ta te co urt. Se e id
. Thu s, t he Roo ker -Feldma n do ct rin e b arre d McS pa rin ’s fed eral cla im s, an d t he di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y di sm is se d t he m

forlac k of juri sd ic ti on . Se e Exxo n Mo bi l Co rp . , 54 4 U.S. at28 4, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 52 1- 22 ; 6 Case: 12-11581 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 6 of 7Ni ch ol

so n , 55 8 F .3dat 1 27 4; Ca sa le , 55 8 F .3dat 1 25 9- 61 (co nc lu di ng th atth e Roo ker -Feldma n do ct rin e d ep riv edth e d is tri ctco ur t o f juri sd ic ti on ov er the pl ai nt iff’s cla im

th at , in pri orst at e co ur t p ro ceed in gs , th e st at e co urt v io la te d t he FSPA wh en iten fo rceda pr ov is io n i n h is di vo rce d ecre e req ui rin g h im to pa y hi s ex -wif e h al f of hi s m il it ary ret ire m en t p ay ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

7 Case: 12-11581 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 7 of 7