Caroline S. Rock, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Commonwealth of Virginia, Countyof Henrico, Virginia, George F. Tidey, John R. Rock, Louiserock Poltrack, Edward D. Barnes, Ward H. Saylor, Jr., Bettyj. Rollins, William L. Holmes, the Postmaster General of Theunited States, Defendants-appellees, 912 F.2d 463 (4th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 912 F.2d 463 (4th Cir. 1990) Submitted July 27, 1990. Decided Aug. 31, 1990

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-89-735-R)

Caroline S. Rock, appellant pro se.

Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Peter Robert Messitt, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Joseph Paul Rapisarda, Jr., County Attorney, Karen Meriwether Adams, County Attorney's Office for the County of Henrico, Richmond, Va., Edward Dean Barnes, Englisby, Barnes, Hennessy & Englisby, Chesterfield, Va., for appellees.

E.D. Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Caroline S. Rock appeals from the district court's order dismissing her civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. She has also filed in this Court a motion to vacate injunctions entered against her by the Circuit Court of Henrico County. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that the appeal is without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the order below on the reasoning of the district court. Rock v. United States, CA-89-735-R (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 1990). We deny the motion to vacate the injunctions. Federal courts have no jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions, and in particular, over cases arising out of judicial proceedings, even if the state court action is alleged to be unconstitutional. Review of such cases may be had only in the Supreme Court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.