v.

                               THOMAS H. DILTS, Presiding Judge Superior Court

         
                               On Appeal From the United States District Court
                                           For the District of New Jersey
                                            (D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-03526)
                                District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler
                    

           Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

                                                     March 24, 2005
             

                   BEFORE: ALITO, McKEE and AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGES

                                               (Filed June 3, 2005)

                                                          OPINION
                                                      PER CURIAM

             Janet Beddini appeals the District Court’s order granting appellee’s

motion to dismiss. 

           We conclude that the District Court’s decision was proper, and, 

therefore,  will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

       In July 2004 Beddini filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§

1983, 1985 & 1986. She alleged that Honorable Thomas H. Dilts, Presiding

Judge,  Superior Court of Somerset County, New Jersey, violated her

Fourteenth Amendment rights when he ruled on her motions in her family

law case.

    Judge Dilts filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2) and (6), which was granted by the District Court.

      Beddini timely appealed.  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1291.  We may dismiss this appeal  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

if it has no  arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325 (1989).

          The District Court granted the motion to dismiss and concluded that

Judge Dilts was absolutely immune from suit. We agree. Judge Dilts acted

in his judicial capacity when ruling on the motions at issue. See Mireles v.

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).

          Beddini’s claim that Judge Dilts conspired with others or acted

maliciously does  not alter the application of judicial immunity to this case.

See Pierson v. Ray,  386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967); see, e.g., Dennis v. Sparks,

449 U.S. 24, 26-27 (1980).

            For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss Beddini’s appeal

pursuant to  § 1915(e)(2).