14-1611 Jaoude v. Hannah



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A**  **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A**  **PPENDIX 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**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 22 nd** **day of December, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER,** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **MARIA L. JAOUDE,** 12 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  13 14 **-v.- 14-1611** 15 16 **MATTHEW E. HANNAH, TIME WARNER CABLE,** 17 **RITA J. BIONDI,** 18 **Defendants-Appellee s.**  19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 20 21 **FOR APPELLANT:** MARIA L. JAOUDE, pro se , 22 Buffalo, New York. 23 24 **FOR APPELLEES MATTHEW E.** 25 **HANNAH AND TIME WARNER** 26 **CABLE:** A. VINCENT BUZARD, Harris Beach 27 PLLC, Pittsford, New York. 28

1**FOR APPELLEE RITA J.** 1 **BIONDI:** MICHAEL T. HAGELIN, Hagelin 2 Kent, LLC, Buffalo, New York. 3 4 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 5 Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J. ). 6 7 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 8 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 9 **AFFIRMED**

. 10 11 Appellant Maria L. Jaoude, pro se , appeals from the 12 order of the United States District Court for the Western 13 District of New York (Telesca, J. ), dismissing the case for 14 lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 16 history, and the issues presented for review. 17 18 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an 19 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, including 20 dismissals under the Rooker -Feldmandoctrine. Hoblock v. 21 Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections , 422 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 22 2005). Under the Rooker -Feldmandoctrine, federal courts 23 lack subject matter jurisdiction to review “cases brought by 24 state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state 25 court judgments rendered before the district court 26 proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and 27 rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi 28 Basic Indus. Corp. , 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); see also 29 Hoblock , 422 F.3d at 85. 30 31 The district court properly dismissed the case for lack 32 of subject matter jurisdiction both under the Rooker -Feldman 33 doctrine and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, we 34 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 35 36 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 37 Jaoude’s other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of 38 the district court. 39 40 FOR THE COURT: 41 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 42 43 44

2