DiCicco v. Bonsey

USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-1286


JOSEPH P. DICICCO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

EARL A. BONSEY, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.
____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Joseph P. DiCicco on brief pro se. _________________
Carl F. Rella, Julie D. Jenkins and Rella, Dostie & Tucker, P.A., _____________ ________________ ____________________________
on brief for appellee Robert Tremblay.
James M. Bowie and Thompson & Bowie on brief for appellee Sandra ______________ ________________
Hylander-Collier.
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Paul Stern, Assistant _______________ __________
Attorney General, on brief for appellees Justices Roberts and Smith.

____________________

August 27, 1996
____________________















Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and __________

record, we conclude that the district court properly

dismissed appellant's complaint, essentially for the reasons

stated by the magistrate judge and the district court. We

add only the following comments.

Contrary to appellant's arguments, we perceive no

error in the dismissal of appellant's claims against the

Maine state court judges. Those claims were inextricably

intertwined with review of the state court proceedings, and

so the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to

consider them. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. ___ _____________________________________

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust _______ ______ ______________

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 ___ ___________ ___

F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).

Further, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the

district court's decision to dismiss appellant's remaining

state claims, after his federal claims were dismissed. See ___

28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 1367(d). ________

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___















-2-