Tawan Cooper v. Pamela Varouxis

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00025-CMH-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999948200]. Mailed to: Tawana Jean Cooper. [16-1723]

Appeal: 16-1723

Doc: 22

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1723

TAWANA JEAN COOPER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PAMELA A. VAROUXIS, Executrix and Trustee of the Theodore
Varouxis Estate and Trust; JOHN T. FREY, Clerk of the
Circuit Court, Fairfax County, individually and in his
official capacity; NELSON L. KNOTT, Comptroller of the
Circuit Court, Fairfax County Virginia,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00025-CMH-TCB)

Submitted:

October 13, 2016

Decided:

October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tawana Jean Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arthur Sottolano,
CHADWICK WASHINGTON MORIARTY ELMORE & BUNN PC, Glen Allen,
Virginia; Alexander Francuzenko, Philip Corliss Krone, COOK
CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1723

Doc: 22

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tawana
denying

her

Jean

Cooper

complaint

appeals

challenging

the
a

district
state

court’s

court

orders

civil

order

regarding a property issue and denying her postjudgment motions
for

reconsideration

and

to

enter

default

judgment.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

We

have

Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *

Cooper

v. Varouxis, No. 1:16-cv-00025-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. filed May 16 &
entered May 17, 2016; June 14 & 17, 2016).
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

*

To the extent that Cooper seeks damages because she
believes that the Defendants committed fraud upon the state
court, however, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar her
claims.
See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild
LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 172-73 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that
Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not deprive district court of
jurisdiction in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action alleging that
plaintiff’s losses in state court action resulted from a
conspiracy between the defendants and certain members of the
state judiciary).
Nonetheless, the district court correctly
dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim.

2