MEMORANDUM **

Donald Raymond Smith appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief. Smith brought his claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against Oregon state trial, appellate, and supreme court judges, alleging that they denied him due process, equal protection, his right to a jury trial, and his right to petition for redress of grievances. We affirm.

This action refers to an earlier civil action Smith had brought in an Oregon state court. In the earlier case, Smith had sued his doctor alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and misrepresentation. The trial court judge granted a directed verdict in favor of the doctor. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Oregon Supreme Court denied review of the lower courts' decisions, and further denied Smith's petition for a writ of mandamus.

In his present claim, Smith requests that the state court decisions be rendered null and void, and that his right to a jury trial be restored. He further requests that costs awarded to his doctor be disallowed, and that he be awarded costs instead.

While Smith refers to various provisions of the United States Constitution, the only basis he alleges for their violation is the trial court's ordering of a directed verdict and the appellate courts' refusal to reverse the trial court. Although Smith's complaint is couched in terms of injunctive and declaratory relief, he is essentially asking us to overturn the decisions of the three Oregon state courts on the merits. That we cannot do. It is well settled that lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the merits of final state court determinations. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 296 (1970). No facts are alleged that would give rise to a claim of a constitutional violation.

For the reasons given above, the judgment is affirmed.