Tawan Cooper v. Pamela Varouxis


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1723 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1723 TAWANA JEAN COOPER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PAMELA A. VAROUXIS, Executrix and Trustee of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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?