Court Opinion

ID: 2963665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:42.600011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:57.470964
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 15, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1572 

                                  CONSTANCE CAMPISI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           ANGELA C. MAFFEO, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Constance Campisi on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Antonette S.  Fernandez, William H.  Carroll and  Dillon & Carroll
            _______________________  ___________________      ________________
        on brief for appellee Angela C. Maffeo, Trustee.
            Timothy E. Sterritt on brief for appellee Alphonse A. Scott.
            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  The district court correctly dismissed
                      __________

            plaintiff's  action for lack of federal jurisdiction.  To the

            extent  plaintiff wanted  the  district court  to review  the

            correctness  of the state court decisions, plaintiff's action

            was  properly  dismissed  because lower  federal  courts lack

            jurisdiction  to review  state  court judgments.   Rooker  v.
                                                               ______

            Fidelity Trust  Co.,  263  U.S. 413  (1923).  To  the  extent
            ___________________

            plaintiff wanted the district court to hear and determine the

            merits  of  her  controversies  with  defendants   and  their

            predecessors  in title,  the  action was  properly  dismissed

            because  plaintiff's disputes, as described in her complaint,

            amended  complaint, and  other papers,  are not  the type  of

            matters over which federal courts have jurisdiction.
                               _______

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -3-