UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tawana Jean Cooper appeals the district court’s orders
denying her complaint challenging a state court civil order
regarding a property issue and denying her postjudgment motions
for reconsideration and to enter default judgment. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court 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