Case Name: Walter Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-25
Citations: 69 F. App'x 140
Docket Number: No. 03-6532
Parties: Walter Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 69
Pages: 140–140

Head Matter:
Walter Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6532.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 19, 2003.
Decided June 25, 2003.
Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Walter Lee Wright appeals the order of the district court denying relief on his claim filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Wright's claim before the district court sought to challenge the judgment of a Maryland state court denying relief on an earlier civil rights complaint filed by Wright in that court. The writ of habeas corpus is available for those alleging they are "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." § 2254(a). Moreover, the district court does not have jurisdiction over the judgments of state courts. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) (noting exclusive jurisdiction over state court action is in the Supreme Court of the United States). Accordingly, because the relief sought by Wright was unavailable under § 2254, and because the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim, we find no error in the district court's order of dismissal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED.