Eleanor CAPOGROSSO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, State of New York, Office of Court Administration, Hon. Fern Fisher Brandveen, in her Official and individual capacities, Hon. Eileen Bransten, in her official and individual capacities, Hon. John T. Buckley, in both his official and individual capacities, Hon. Joan Carey, in her official and individual capacities, Sherry K. Cohen, in her official and individual capacities, Paul Curran, in his official and individual capacities, Hon. Carol R. Edmead, in her official and individual capacities, Raoul Felder, in his official and individual capacities, Hon. Judith Gische, in her official and individual capacities, Sarah Jo Hamilton, in her official and individual capacities, Hon. Debra James, in her official and individual capacities, Hon. Judith S. Kaye, in her official and individual capacities, Hon. Joan M. Kenney, in her official and individual capacities, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, in her official and individual capacities, Hon. K. Jeffrey Oing, in his Official and individual capacities, Hon. Eileen A. Rakower, in her official and individual capacities, Sherill Spatz, in her official and individual capacities, Hon. Martin A. Shulman, in his official and individual capacities, Hon. Geoffrey D. Wright, in his official and individual capacities, John Doe 1-20, Jane Doe 1-20, The Appellate Division, First Department, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Thomas J. Cahill, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees, 352 F. App'x 456

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Eleanor Capogrosso appeals from an August 8, 2008 opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, J.) dismissing her claims sua sponte, and an August 28, 2008 order of that same court denying reconsideration of her claims. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars Appellant’s claims against the State of New York and its arms.

Moreover, the defendant New York State judges are afforded absolute judicial immunity, as are those remaining defendants “who perform functions closely associated with the judicial process.” Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37, 39 (2d Cir.1988). To the extent that Appellant is effectively asking the Court to review decisions of the courts of the State of New York, we lack jurisdiction to address her claims. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basics Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-88, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (explaining the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).

With respect to her remaining claims, Appellant fails to allege a deprivation of “a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Charles W. v. Maul, 214 F.3d 350, 357 (2d Cir.2000). Accordingly, the opinion and order of the district court dismissing Appellant’s action is hereby AFFIRMED. Any outstanding motions are hereby DENIED as moot.