Case Name: Nicholas C. DANIELS; Rowena Daniels, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, also known as Freddie Mac, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 617 F. App'x 358
Docket Number: No. 15-10236
Parties: Nicholas C. DANIELS; Rowena Daniels, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, also known as Freddie Mac, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 617
Pages: 358–358

Head Matter:
Nicholas C. DANIELS; Rowena Daniels, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, also known as Freddie Mac, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-10236
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2015.
Nicholas C. Daniels, Duncanville, TX, pro se.
Rowena Daniels, Duncanville, TX, pro se.
Travis Hegar Gray, Jack O’Boyle & Associates, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The property of Appellants was sold after foreclosure in 2011, and Appellants have sought judicial relief since — but always without success.
They filed in state court that year a ease removed to federal court and dismissed in 2013 for failure to state a legal claim.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation brought forcible detainer suit for possession of the property, which eventually disposed of Appellant's claim. That state proceeding was interrupted when Appellants filed a suit that was resolved, again for failure to state a claim, by the Fifth Circuit in 2014, and then completed by the state court.
Regarding the present suit as an attempt to set aside the state court's forcible detainer judgment, Appellants encounter the Rooker-Feldman rule. That is where the district court ended, and we must affirm that judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under. the limited circumstánces set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.