11-5140
Shrestha v. Lelin
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS
GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL
RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS
COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC
DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 15th day of November, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 REENA RAGGI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 Manohar Shrestha, Renu Shrestha,
15
16 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
17
18 v. 11-5140
19
20 Ross Lelin,
21
22 Defendant-Appellee.
23 _____________________________________
24
25
26 FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Manohar Shrestha, pro se,
27 and Renu Shrestha, pro se,
28 Manorville, NY.
29
1 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Ross Lelin, pro se,
2 Freeport, NY.
3
4 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
5 Court for the Southern District of New York (Batts, J.).
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
8 AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
9
10 Appellants Manohar Shrestha and Renu Shrestha, pro se,
11 appeal the sua sponte dismissal of their complaint for lack
12 of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
13 12(h)(3), based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We assume
14 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
15 procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
16
17 Upon such review, we conclude that the Shresthas’
18 appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons
19 articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned
20 order. Shrestha v. Lelin, No. 11-cv-4851 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24,
21 2011). We have considered all of the Shresthas’ remaining
22 arguments and find them to be without merit.
23
24 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
25 court is hereby AFFIRMED.
26
27 FOR THE COURT:
28 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
29
2