Court Opinion

ID: 2963062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:05:59.695844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:38.461083
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 8, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1984                                    JANICE M. BERG,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                            STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Janice M. Berg on brief pro se.
            ______________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff's action essentially sought
                      __________            federal  court  review  of  state  family  court proceedings.            Because  lower federal courts  do not  have the  authority to            review  such   proceedings,  we   affirm  the  dismissal   of            plaintiff's action.  Rooker  v. Fidelity Trust Co.,  263 U.S.
                                 _____________________________            413, 415-16 (1923);  Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 F.2d 15, 17 (1st
                                 __________________            Cir. 1990).                        Affirmed.
                      ________