Bismark Torkornoo v. Nina Helwig, No. 16-1650 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1650 BISMARK KWAKU TORKORNOO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NINA HELWIG, Esq.; JOHN JACQUELINE NGOLE, Esq., MONAHAN, Esq.; MARY TORKORNOO; Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-02652-TDC) Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: December 8, 2016 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo, Appellant Pro Se. Monahan, Jacqueline Ngole, Appellees Pro Se. Nina Helwig, John Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman ∗ doctrine after finding that Torkornoo’s claims arose out of or were inextricably intertwined with prior state court proceedings. Subsequent to the district court’s order, we clarified the narrow scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in Thana v. Bd. Of License Commissioners for Charles City, 827 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2016), explaining that the doctrine does not apply “if a plaintiff in federal court does not seek review of the state court judgment itself but instead presents an independent claim” that is related to a matter decided by a state court. quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Id. at 320 (internal Instead, “any tensions between the two proceedings should be managed through the doctrines of preclusion, comity, and abstention.” Id. Because the district court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis may be inconsistent with our recent clarification, we vacate its order and remand for reconsideration in light of Thana. Appellee Monahan’s motion to dismiss. We deny as moot We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately ∗ Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 3
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.
