Case Name: HEKYONG PAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Delores RIDGELL, Assistant Bar Counsel for Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland; Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-12
Citations: 476 F. App'x 750
Docket Number: No. 11-2083
Parties: HEKYONG PAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Delores RIDGELL, Assistant Bar Counsel for Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland; Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 476
Pages: 750–750

Head Matter:
HEKYONG PAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Delores RIDGELL, Assistant Bar Counsel for Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland; Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-2083.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2012.
Decided: June 12, 2012.
Robert S. Catz, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, Steven M. Sullivan, H. Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hekyong Pak appeals the district court's orders dismissing her action against the Defendants and denying her motion to reconsider the dismissal of her civil action. Pak sought to overturn her state disbarment and alleged improprieties regarding that proceeding. On appeal, Pak raises two issues: (1) whether the district court erred in finding that part of her suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldmcm doctrine; and (2) whether State Bar Counsel Delores Ridgell was protected by immunity. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First,.we find no error in the district court's application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in declining to reconsider Pak's disbarment. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005); Davani v. Va. Dep't of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 715-16 (4th Cir.2006). Second, we find that the district court properly found Rid-gell to be immune from suit for her participation in Pak's disciplinary proceedings. Gill v. Ripley, 352 Md. 754, 724 A.2d 88, 96 (1999). Finally, to the extent Pak challenges the denial of her motion to reconsider, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir.2010) (providing review standard).
Accordingly, we affirm both orders for the reasons stated by the district court. Pak v. Ridgell, No. l:10-cv01421-RDB, 2011 WL 3320197 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2011 & Sept. 12, 2011). We deny Pak's motion to vacate the Clerk's order denying her motion for leave to file an addendum to her reply brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S.Ct 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).