Case Name: Bismark Kwaku TORKORNOO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nina HELWIG, Esq.; John Monahan, Esq.; Mary Torkornoo; Jacqueline Ngole, Esq., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-08
Citations: 671 F. App'x 130
Docket Number: No. 16-1650
Parties: Bismark Kwaku TORKORNOO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nina HELWIG, Esq.; John Monahan, Esq.; Mary Torkornoo; Jacqueline Ngole, Esq., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
Bismark Kwaku TORKORNOO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nina HELWIG, Esq.; John Monahan, Esq.; Mary Torkornoo; Jacqueline Ngole, Esq., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1650
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 31, 2016
Decided: December 8, 2016
Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo, Appellant Pro Se. Nina Helwig, John Monahan, Jacqueline Ngole, Appellees Pro Se.
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bismark' Kwaku Torkornoo appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action on the basis of the Rooker-Feld-man doctrine after finding that Torkor-noo's claims arose out of or were inextricably intertwined with prior state court proceedings. Subsequent to the district court's order, we clarified the narrow scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in Thana v. Bd. Of License Commissioners for Charles Cty., 827 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2016), explaining that the doctrine does not apply "if a plaintiff in federal court does not seek review of the state court judgment itself but instead presents an independent claim" that is related to a matter decided by a state court. H. at 320 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Instead, "any tensions between the two proceedings should be managed through the doctrines of preclusion, comity, and abstention." Id.
Because the district court's Rooker-Feldman analysis may be inconsistent with our recent clarification, we vacate its order and remand for reconsideration in light of Thana. We deny as moot Appellee Mona-han's motion to dismiss. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).