Aaron Anthony Edison v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 1983 stating that the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2268
AARON ANTHONY EDISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Governor Wise; WEST
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
RESOURCES,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; WEST
VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; ALAN D.
MOATS, Judge of the Circuit Court of Taylor
County; LEONARD LUCAS, Magistrate, Court of
Taylor County; TAYLOR COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-175-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2005 Decided: March 24, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 5 --

- 2 -
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Aaron Anthony Edison, Appellant Pro Se. William S. Steele, Deputy
Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia; Vanessa Lynn Goddard,
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, Jacquelyn J. Core,
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 5 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Anthony Edison appeals the district court’s order
granting the Department of Health and Human Resources’ motion for
summary judgment on Edison’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action;
granting the State of West Virginia and Governor Wise’s motion to
dismiss; and denying Edison’s motions for general relief. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
On appeal, Edison first assigns error to the district
court’s denial of his “Third Renewal Motion for Case to be Awarded
to Plaintiff Due to Defendant’s Third Time Failure to Respond to
Complaint and Summons in the Thirty Day Time Period Allotted by
Law.” We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion
in the district court’s denial of Edison’s motion.
Edison next challenges the district court award of
summary judgment to the Department of Health and Human Resources.
However, because Edison seeks to overturn final state court
judgments against him, the district court lacked jurisdiction over
his complaint. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983) (stating that the Rooker-Feldman
abstention doctrine establishes that a district court lacks
jurisdiction over a litigant’s challenge to a state court decision,
including challenges alleging the state court’s action was
unconstitutional). Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment
on those grounds.

-- 3 of 5 --

- 4 -
Edison asks this court to “overturn and/or dismiss this
District Court decision to sanction this plaintiff to pay attorney
fees in the amount of $960.80.” We lack jurisdiction to review
this order because Edison never filed a timely notice of appeal as
to this order.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory
and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.
257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
229 (1960)). The district court’s judgment order was entered on
the docket on October 6, 2004. Because Edison failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of
the appeal period as to this order, we dismiss this portion of the
appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to
dismiss, and dismiss Edison’s appeal from the district court’s
order awarding the Department of Health and Human Resources
reasonable costs and fees. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 4 of 5 --

- 5 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

-- 5 of 5 --