Case Name: Mark David FRANKEL, Appellant v. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-13
Citations: 285 F. App'x 988
Docket Number: No. 06-2788
Parties: Mark David FRANKEL, Appellant v. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEE, FUENTES, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 988–989

Head Matter:
Mark David FRANKEL, Appellant v. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Appellee.
No. 06-2788.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2008 Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a).
Filed Aug. 13, 2008.
Mark David Frankel, York, PA, pro se.
Mary Butler, Esq., Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.
Before: McKEE, FUENTES, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Mark David Frankel appeals the district court's April 4, 2005, April 20, 2005, and April 27, 2006, 2006 WL 1118050, orders, which together dismissed the complaint in which he had alleged a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that complaint, Frankel alleged that the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and certain named individuals violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process during disciplinary proceedings that resulted in his disbarment. We will affirm.
Inasmuch as we write only for the parties who are familiar with this ease, we need not recite the factual or procedural background of this dispute. We have reviewed the district court's thorough and thoughtful memoranda explaining the absence of subject matter jurisdiction to hear some of Frankel's claims in federal court, and why the defendants are entitled to
immunity on his remaining claims. The district court's memoranda fully and accurately explain why Frankel's complaint must be dismissed, and we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth therein.