UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT CARLYLE BERRETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 98-2388

GRACE INEZ ELMO,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(CA-98-1428-DKC)

Submitted: July 20, 1999

Decided: August 11, 1999

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Carlyle Berrett, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Berrett appeals the district court order dismissing his action

seeking monetary damages and title to real property. For the reasons

set forth below, we vacate and remand.

Under exceptional circumstances, a district court may abstain from

adjudicating a controversy before it "for reasons of wise judicial

administration." Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United

States, 424 U.S. 800, 818 (1976). Before determining that abstention

is warranted, the district court must first determine whether the state

and federal proceedings are parallel. See New Beckley Mining Corp.

v. International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. , 946 F.2d 1072,

1073 (4th Cir. 1991). "Suits are parallel if substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues in different forums." Id.

"When a district court decides to dismiss or stay under Colorado

River, it presumably concludes that the parallel state-court litigation

will be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of

the issues between the parties. If there is any substantial doubt as to

this, it would be a serious abuse of discretion to grant the stay or dismissal at all." Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr.

Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 28 (1983). A district court's decision to surrender

jurisdiction under the Colorado River doctrine of abstention is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. See New Beckley Mining Corp., 946

F.2d at 1074.

The district court's decision to abstain from exercising jurisdiction

over this case was based on its finding that the state court litigation

alluded to in Berrett's complaint would adequately resolve the substantive issues forming the basis of his federal action. Berrett argues

that the proceeding pending in orphans' court is inadequate to afford

him the relief he seeks because the orphans' court does not possess

jurisdiction to determine title to real property. He further asserts that

the action he filed in state circuit court was summarily dismissed

without prejudice and that no current action is pending in that court.

Accepting Berrett's assertion that there is no pending action in state

circuit court, Berrett is correct in his assertion that the proceeding in

 2
orphans' court will not be an adequate vehicle for the complete resolution of his claim seeking title to real property. Orphans' courts are

tribunals of special limited jurisdiction that can exercise only such

authority and power as is expressly provided to them by law, see

Comptroller of Treas. v. Russell, 395 A.2d 488, 489 (Md. 1978), and

it is well settled under Maryland law that orphans' courts have no

jurisdiction to determine title to real property. See Preissman v.

Harmatz, 288 A.2d 180, 183 (Md. 1972).

On the record before us, therefore, we find that the district court

erred in finding that there existed parallel state court litigation that

will be an adequate vehicle for the complete resolution of Berrett's

claims. Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in finding

that parallel state proceedings justified its decision to abstain from

exercising jurisdiction over Berrett's claims. We vacate the district

court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion. We offer no opinion as to whether additional information

about related state court proceedings would justify a renewed decision

to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the case. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 3