UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 97-10508
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
MARTI ADDAMS-MORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NINA RUTH MOORE, Et Al,
Defendants,
DAVID CAVE, Honorable Judge,
Defendant, Appellee
_________________
No. 97-10898
_________________
MARTI ADDAMS-MORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NINA RUTH MOORE, Et Al,
Defendants,
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendant - Appellee
_________________
No. 97-11257
_________________
MARTI ADDAMS-MORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NINA RUTH MOORE, Et Al,
Defendants,
COUNTY OF DALLAS,
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(3:96-CV-2254-D)
June 24, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marti Addams-More appeals from the judgments dismissing her
claims against state-court judge David Cave, the State of Texas,
and Dallas County for failure to state a claim. We consolidate
Addams-More’s appeals, FED. R. APP. P. 3(b), and we dispose of all
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
-2-
three appeals with this opinion. Addams-More’s motions for leave
to correct her briefs are DENIED.
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its
own motion if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660
(5th Cir. 1987). Federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage in
appellate review of the final determinations of state courts. See
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
476-82, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1311-15, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983); Rooker
v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.
Ed. 362 (1923).
Addams-More repeats the civil-rights claims and the claims
under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §
12131-12165, that she raised in the district court. Addams-More
attempts to use federal civil rights law and the ADA to review the
state-court judgments adverse to her and to review actions
inextricably intertwined with those judgments. We lack
jurisdiction to consider Addams-More’s appeals. Addams-More’s
appeals are frivolous. We warn Addams-More that future frivolous
appeals may result in sanctions against her. Addams-More should
review any pending appeals and withdraw any appeals that are
frivolous.
APPEALS DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTIONS WARNING
IMPOSED.
-3-