EVANS v. PLLC (2018)

Reginald Evans appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing his third amended civil complaint as barred by the Rooker-Feldman ^* doctrine. To the extent that Evans sought to directly challenge the state court's judgment in federal court, the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over his claims. See Thana v. Bd. of License Comm'rs for Charles Cty., 827 F.3d 314, 319-20 (4th Cir. 2016) (discussing application of Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Although the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would not bar Evans’ due process claim, we affirm on the ground that Evans failed to state a viable claim as to the named defendants. See Quesenberry v. Volvo Trucks N. Am. Retiree Healthcare Benefit Plan, 651 F.3d 437, 442 n.* (4th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e can affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record.” (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.