UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1455

BURMAN Y. MATHIS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DAVID S. GOLDBERG, Esq.; STUART MUNTZING SKOK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-01777-DKC)

Submitted: August 13, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Burman Y. Mathis, Appellant Pro Se. James Edward Dickerman, 

Lauren Elizabeth Marini, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, 

Maryland; James Xavier Crogan, Jr., SCHENKER, KRAUSE, CROGAN & 

LOPEZ, Owings Mills, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Burman Mathis brought this civil action in the 

district court seeking damages from the arbitrator and a witness 

who testified in state arbitration proceedings related to 

Mathis’ divorce. The district court granted the Defendants’

motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. We affirm.

Some of Mathis’ claims are, in essence, an attempt to 

challenge the results of the arbitration proceeding. He twice 

sought to challenge that proceeding in state court. The first 

action resulted in a state court decision confirming the 

arbitration agreement, and Mathis entered into a settlement 

agreement in the second state court action. Lower federal 

district courts generally are not empowered to review state 

court proceedings, and this case provides no exception to the 

general rule. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. 

Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92 (2005); District of Columbia Ct. of 

App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 

Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

We next address Mathis’ claims for damages arising 

from the Defendants’ conduct during the arbitration proceedings, 

rather than the result of the proceedings. Those claims are not 

barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Davani v. Virginia 
3

Dep’t of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 713 (4th Cir. 2006). However, 

we conclude that these claims lack merit.1

Defendant Goldberg, the arbitrator, is immune from 

damages because he was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. See

Gill v. Ripley, 724 A.2d 88, 92 (Md. 1999) (recognizing the 

common law doctrine of judicial immunity); see also Olson v. 

Nat’l Ass’n of Secs. Dealers, 85 F.3d 381, 382 (8th Cir. 1996) 

(noting that courts of appeals have uniformly extended judicial 

and quasi-judicial immunity to arbitrators; collecting cases). 

Similarly, it long has been established that witnesses are 

absolutely immune from damages for their testimony given in 

legal proceedings. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335-36 

(1983). Therefore, Defendant Skok is immune from damages as 

well.2

Mathis also asserts that the district court erred in 

denying his motion for judicial notice and a hearing, his 

 1 The district court analyzed these claim under the doctrine 

of non-mutual collateral estoppel. Although we express no 

disagreement with this analysis, we may affirm on any basis 

apparent on the face of the record. See MM ex rel. DM v. School 

Dist. of Greenville County, 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002).

2 We note that Defendant Skok did not raise a defense of 

immunity in the district court. In any event, the claim against 

her is meritless. Mathis cannot make out a claim for fraud 

because he has not made a plausible showing that he relied to 

his detriment on the testimony of Skok, a witness for his 

ex-wife, and reliance is an essential element of fraud. 

Gross v. Sussex Inc., 630 A.2d 1156, 1161 (Md. 1993).
4

request for sanctions, and his motion to recuse. We affirm the 

denial of these motions based on the reasoning of the district 

court. Mathis v. Goldberg, No. 8:12-cv-01777-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 

25, 2013).

In sum, finding no error, we affirm. We deny leave to 

file a “CD supplement.” We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

material before this Court and argument will not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED