Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Leake v. Keith, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Donald Leake of a case dismissed by the district court. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Leake's complaint alleging libel and malicious prosecution against John Keith was barred by legal doctrines of collateral estoppel and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Additionally, there was no federal jurisdiction over the essentially state law claims and the allegations against Keith were based solely on a respondeat superior theory, which is not a valid basis for a Section 1983 claim. The appeals court also upheld the award of sanctions against Leake under Rule 11.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Leake v. Keith, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Donald Leake of a case dismissed by the district court. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Leake's complaint alleging libel and malicious prosecution against John Keith was barred by legal doctrines of collateral estoppel and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Additionally, there was no federal jurisdiction over the essentially state law claims and the allegations against Keith were based solely on a respondeat superior theory, which is not a valid basis for a Section 1983 claim. The appeals court also upheld the award of sanctions against Leake under Rule 11.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-2569

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Donald Leake of a case dismissed by the district court. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Leake's complaint alleging libel and malicious prosecution against John Keith was barred by legal doctrines of collateral estoppel and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Additionally, there was no federal jurisdiction over the essentially state law claims and the allegations against Keith were based solely on a respondeat superior theory, which is not a valid basis for a Section 1983 claim. The appeals court also upheld the award of sanctions against Leake under Rule 11.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    Leake v. Keith, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Donald Leake of a case dismissed by the district court. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Leake's complaint alleging libel and malicious prosecution against John Keith was barred by legal doctrines of collateral estoppel and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Additionally, there was no federal jurisdiction over the essentially state law claims and the allegations against Keith were based solely on a respondeat superior theory, which is not a valid basis for a Section 1983 claim. The appeals court also upheld the award of sanctions against Leake under Rule 11.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    DONALD M. LEAKE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.

    No. 99-2569

    JOHN A.C. KEITH,


    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
    B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-99-65-5)
    Submitted: March 14, 2000
    Decided: March 28, 2000
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Donald M. Leake, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Meade Macon, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Donald Leake appeals the magistrate judge's order dismissing as
    frivolous his civil action alleging libel and malicious prosecution, and
    granting Defendant John Keith's motion for sanctions pursuant to
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).* We have reviewed the district court record and
    the pleadings filed in this court and find that the appeal is meritless.
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    As the magistrate judge correctly concluded, the complaint was
    barred by collateral estoppel and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See
    Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist., 465 U.S. 75, 83-85 (1984); District
    of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983);
    Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). Further,
    Leake's claims were essentially state law claims, but there was no
    diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C.A. 1332 (West 1993 & Supp.
    1999). To the extent that the action could be construed as one under
    42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 1999), the claims against Keith are
    not cognizable because they are based solely on a respondeat superior
    theory. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 69394 (1978). Finally, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion
    in awarding sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Cooter & Gell v.
    Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990); Blue v. United States
    Dep't of Army, 914 F.2d 525, 538-39 (4th Cir. 1990).
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    _________________________________________________________________
    *The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999).
    2

    You might also like