Joseph Bova, Jr. v. Ray Sajone

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: March 5, 2026
• Docket: 25-3132
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-3132 __________

JOSEPH MICHAEL BOVA, JR., Appellant

v.

RAY SAJONE; CATHY MOFFAT SAJONE ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00258) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 4, 2026 Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and BOVE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed March 5, 2026) ___________

OPINION* ___________

PER CURIAM

Joseph Michael Bova, Jr. appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his

complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We will affirm.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. I.

Bova filed a complaint with allegations focused on the events surrounding his

father’s death. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court lacked subject-matter

jurisdiction, and granted Bova leave to amend his complaint. Bova’s amended complaint

failed to cure the jurisdictional deficiency, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that

the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Over Bova’s

objections, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation

and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

Bova’s timely appeal followed. He has submitted an informal brief in support of

his appeal.

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

District Court’s dismissal of Bova’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See

In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 632 (3d Cir.

2017).

III.

We will affirm the District Court’s order because Bova failed to provide any basis

for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Bova’s arguments mostly reiterate

the ideas expressed in his complaint, and do not address the issue of subject-matter

jurisdiction. Nowhere in his complaint did Bova allege that his claims were being brought

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; thus, the District Court

2 correctly concluded that it did not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.

Nor did Bova plead diversity jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity

jurisdiction exists in civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and

the opposing parties are citizens of different states. In his amended complaint, Bova did

not address his citizenship or that of the defendants; however, in his initial complaint he

provided a Pennsylvania address for himself, and a Pennsylvania address for the

defendants as well. Bova, as the plaintiff in this case, was required to plead the grounds

for jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC,

800 F.3d 99, 106 (3d Cir. 2015). As the District Court concluded, Bova failed to allege

that diversity jurisdiction existed. See GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC,

888 F.3d 29, 34 (3d Cir. 2018) (“The citizenship of a natural person is the state where

that person is domiciled.”).

Finally, the District Court did not err in concluding that granting Bova further

leave to amend would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 113

(3d Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.