
    Bruce S. JOYNER, Appellant v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; Deidre Zonvide, a/k/a Deiadre Zonvice, a/k/a Deiadre Zonvide; City of Philadelphia Legal Department; Bernard Evans; Brenda Lake; Michelle Lake.
    No. 05-4475.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 22, 2006.
    Filed: June 27, 2006.
    Bruce S. Joyner, Wilmington, DE, pro se.
    Mia Carpiniello, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Henry J. Horstmann, Edel, Horstmann, Geller, Wiley & Petro, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.
    Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In 2002 Bruce S. Joyner filed a complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas seeking damages for injuries he incurred during a motor vehicle accident. After the Court of Common Pleas entered a non-suit against him, Joyner unsuccessfully appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and Supreme Courts. He then filed a complaint, subsequently amended, in the District Court in which he challenges the state courts’ decisions. The District Court held a hearing in which it explained to Joyner why it did not have jurisdiction to entertain his complaint and later entered an order dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal followed.

Joyner’s complaint does no more than challenge the decisions in his state court proceedings. However, as the District Court explained to Joyner, “a federal District Court may not sit as an appellate court to adjudicate appeals of state court proceedings.” Port Auth. Police Benev. Ass’n, Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J. Police Dept., 973 F.2d 169, 177-79 (3d Cir.1992). Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 
      
      . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. Walker v. Horn, 385 F.3d 321, 328 n. 19 (3d Cir.2004).
     