Hekyong Pak v. Delores Ridgell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to vacate [998821998-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-01421-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998872995].. [11-2083]

Appeal: 11-2083

Doc: 53

Filed: 06/12/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2083

HEKYONG PAK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DELORES
RIDGELL,
Assistant
Bar
Counsel
for
Attorney
Grievance
Commission
of
Maryland;
ATTORNEY
GRIEVANCE
COMMISSION OF MARYLAND,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-01421-RDB)

Submitted:

April 23, 2012

Decided:

June 12, 2012

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert S. Catz, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Douglas F.
Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, Steven M. Sullivan, H.
Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2083

Doc: 53

Filed: 06/12/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Hekyong

Pak

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

dismissing her action against the Defendants and denying her
motion to reconsider the dismissal of her civil action.
sought

to

overturn

her

state

disbarment

improprieties regarding that proceeding.

and

Pak

alleged

On appeal, Pak raises

two issues: (1) whether the district court erred in finding that
part of her suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; ∗ and
(2) whether State Bar Counsel Delores Ridgell was protected by
immunity.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First,

application

of

we
the

find

no

error

Rooker-Feldman

reconsider Pak’s disbarment.

in

the

doctrine

district
in

court’s

declining

to

Exxon_Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); Davani v. Va. Dep’t of
Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 715-16 (4th Cir. 2006).

Second, we find

that the district court properly found Ridgell to be immune from
suit for her participation in Pak’s disciplinary proceedings.
Gill v. Ripley, 724 A.2d 88, 96 (Md. 1999).

Finally, to the

extent Pak challenges the denial of her motion to reconsider, we
find no abuse of discretion by the district court.

∗

Robinson v.

See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486
(1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).

2

Appeal: 11-2083

Wix

Doc: 53

Filtration

Filed: 06/12/2012

Corp.,

599

Pg: 3 of 3

F.3d

403,

407

(4th

orders

for

Cir.

2010)

(providing review standard).
Accordingly,

we

affirm

stated by the district court.

both

the

reasons

Pak v. Ridgell, No. 1:10-cv-

01421-RDB (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2011 & Sept. 12, 2011).

We deny Pak’s

motion to vacate the Clerk’s order denying her motion for leave
to file an addendum to her reply brief.

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.
AFFIRMED

3