**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1016** 

PHIL L IP ROUSSEAU; CARVEL MAYS, JR.; FRANK MARTIN; PAUL F. KENDALL , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; PAUL JOHNSON, Individually and in his Offic ial Capacity as Deputy County Solicitor; LYNN ROBESON, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Assistant County Solicitor; MARSHA S. MCLAUGHLIN, I ndividually and in her Official Capacity as Director, Department of Planning and Zoning; ROBIN REGNER, In dividually and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Assistant to Hearing Examiner and Board of Appeals; LISA KENNY, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Assistant to the Director, Department of Planning & Zoning; MICHELE L. LEF AIVRE, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Board of Appeals Hearing Examiner , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 01 079

- JFM )

Argued : January 25, 2011 Decided: April 21, 2011

Before NIEM E YER, DUNCAN , and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 **ARGUED** : Susan Baker Gray, Highland, Maryland, for Appellants. Melissa Shane Whipkey, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees. **ON BRIEF** : Margaret Ann Nolan, County Solicitor, Louis P. Ruzzi, Senior Assistant County Solicitor, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opi nions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Four residents and voters (“Residents”) of Howard County, Maryland, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Howard County and five of its officers in their individual capacities, a lleging numerous Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection violations with respect to s tate administrative and judicial proceedings. The district court dismissed the claims, finding that three of the residents had impermissibly split their cla ims between two cases and that the fourth did not have standing. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the district court, but we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case under Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S . 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983)

. T he Residents allege “numerous due process violations . . . at the hands of various county B oard[]s and agencies, and their attorneys and staff” during “the county’s administrative review” process. Many of these decisions were in the context s of proposed development projects and land use. The complaint “challenges these actions, as well as the statutorily prescribed process in which most of these actions occurred as being fundamentally unfair and designed to ensure those participating in these processes will have no chance of being heard.” The4 Residents allege that “each of them suffered harm to a protected interest as a result of the pattern and practice of Howard
C ounty to deny them due process in county administrative review and ‘appeals’ processes by a deliberate failure to follow rules, outright perversion of the process by various means including fraud, misrepresentation and collusion between the county and the developers, and by inherent structural defects in the law preventing any sufficient or legitimate process, let alone, constit utionally adequate due process.” They contend that their due process and equal protection rights were violated in the course of ma ny hearings and proceedings, including hearings by the Howard County Board of Appeals and proceedings in Maryland state courts. They characterize their claims as “a challenge to the conduct of administrative proceedings and decisions” at the county level. On appeal, the Residents argue that the district court erroneously dismissed their claims. With respect to the claims of three Residents, Kendall, Martin, and Rousseau, which were dismissed for claim splitting, they argue that “ [ t ] he series of transacti ons or core operative facts in [ this case ] arise from a number of independent administrative hearings, decisions, defective administrative processes in those hearings, or failure to hold administrative hearings or give notice of decisions,” none of which t hey contend were implicated by the related case5 which arose out of the same transactions. And t hey argue with respect to the fourth Resident, Mays , that he had standing because “plaintiffs have standing to bring suit if they allege a diminution of their r ight to vote.” We do not reach the Residents’ arguments, however, because we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case under the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine. The Residents’ complaint asks that lower federal courts in effect exerc ise appellate review over numerous state administrative and judicial decisions , and under our system of federalism, the lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to sit as appellate tribunals over state administrative and judicial decisionmakers, absent expli cit statutory authorization. See Rooker , 263 U.S. 413; Feldman , 460 U.S. 462; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. , 544 U.S. 280 , 284 (2004) (holding that lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear “cases brought by

state

- court losers com plaining of injuries caused by state

- court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”). Parties aggrieved by state administrative and judicial decisions must purs ue review in state appellate tribunals, with the ultimate opportunity to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for review. See Exxon Mobil Corp. , 544 U.S. at 291

- 92. We note that decisions of the Howard County6 Planning Board can be appealed to the Howard County Hearing Examiner, with further appeals to the Howard County Board of Appeals and the state court system, beginning wit h the Circuit Court for Howard County. See, e.g. , Howard County Code , Rules of Procedure of the Board of Appeals , § 2.2 11(e) (providing for appeal from Board of Appeals to Circuit Court for Howard County). Indeed, the Residents acknowledge the existence of this process . They simply contest its sufficiency. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment of di smissal.

AFFIRMED