[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-10242 December 20, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-21277-CV-PCH
A. GLENN BRASWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TIMOTHY D. HENKEL, individually,
SCOTT SILVER, individually, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
( December 20, 2005)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
A. Glenn Braswell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. The district court dismissed the action pursuant to the Rooker/Feldman
doctrine, which bars a federal district court from directly reviewing a final judgment
of a state court. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923).
Braswell makes two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the
Rooker/Feldman doctrine does not apply to the state trial court’s order denying his
motion to disqualify counsel because his constitutional claim is not “inextricably
intertwined” with the state court’s order. Second, he argues that the district court’s
order did not constitute a final judgment for the purposes of the Rooker/Feldman
doctrine.
We have carefully considered the briefs, and relevant parts of the record, and
conclude that Braswell’s arguments are meritless.
AFFIRMED.
2