
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 5, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                            ____________________        No. 95-1336                                 MICHAEL T. ROSSMAN,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                         OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Michael T. Rossman on brief pro se.            __________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  Complaining about a scheduling  order,                      __________            which reassigned  his case from Cambridge  to Concord without            notice or  hearing, plaintiff filed the  present civil rights            action.   Plaintiff  contends that  he  has been  denied  due            process  in the state court.  Plaintiff emphasizes that he is            not challenging the ruling itself -- that is, the correctness            of the scheduling order -- but, rather, the lack of process -            -  the absence of notice  and hearing.   This distinction, he            seems to believe, immunizes his case from dismissal under the            Rooker-Feldman doctrine.   Rooker v. Fidelity  Trust Co., 263            ______________             ______    ___________________            U.S. 413  (1923); District of  Columbia Court  of Appeals  v.                              _______________________________________            Feldman, 460 U.S.  462 (1983).  We disagree.   See Phinizy v.            _______                                        ___ _______            Alabama,  847  F.2d  282,  284 (5th  Cir.  1988)  (claim that            _______            probate  court's conduct of  proceedings denied plaintiff due            process  was  inextricably intertwined  with  probate court's            judgment; consequently, under  Rooker-Feldman, lower  federal                                           ______________            court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the challenge).                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___
