14-1611

Jaoude v. Hannah

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST

SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 22nd 4 day of December, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER,

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 MARIA L. JAOUDE, 

13 Plaintiff-Appellant,

14

15 -v.- 14-1611

16

17 MATTHEW E. HANNAH, TIME WARNER CABLE,

18 RITA J. BIONDI, 

19 Defendants-Appellees.

20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

21

22 FOR APPELLANT: MARIA L. JAOUDE, pro se,

23 Buffalo, New York.

24

25 FOR APPELLEES MATTHEW E. 

26 HANNAH AND TIME WARNER 

27 CABLE: A. VINCENT BUZARD, Harris Beach

28 PLLC, Pittsford, New York.

1
1 FOR APPELLEE RITA J. 

2 BIONDI: MICHAEL T. HAGELIN, Hagelin

3 Kent, LLC, Buffalo, New York.

4

5 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

6 Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.).

7

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

9 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

10 AFFIRMED. 

11

12 Appellant Maria L. Jaoude, pro se, appeals from the

13 order of the United States District Court for the Western

14 District of New York (Telesca, J.), dismissing the case for

15 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’

16 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural

17 history, and the issues presented for review. 

18

19 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an

20 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, including

21 dismissals under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Hoblock v.

22 Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir.

23 2005). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts

24 lack subject matter jurisdiction to review “cases brought by

25 state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state

26 court judgments rendered before the district court

27 proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and

28 rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi

29 Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); see also

30 Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 85.

31

32 The district court properly dismissed the case for lack

33 of subject matter jurisdiction both under the Rooker-Feldman

34 doctrine and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, we

35 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

36

37 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in

38 Jaoude’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of

39 the district court.

40

41 FOR THE COURT:

42 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

43

44

2