Lisa Brown v. Jason Brown

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: August 26, 2019
• Docket: 19-1821
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 19-1821 __________

LISA M. BROWN

v.

JASON L. BROWN, Appellant ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-19-cv-00404) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) August 23, 2019 Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 26, 2019) ___________

OPINION* ___________

PER CURIAM

On March 7, 2019, Jason L. Brown commenced an action in the District Court by

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. filing a “notice of appeal in a civil case.” The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge

who recommended that it be dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine because

Brown was attempting to appeal from a state-court judgment.2 The District Court agreed

and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Brown timely appealed.

We exercise de novo review over the question of subject-matter jurisdiction.

PennMont Secs. v. Frucher, 586 F.3d 242, 245 (3d Cir. 2009); see also United States v.

Apple MacPro Computer, 851 F.3d 238, 244 (3d Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We agree with the District Court that it lacked jurisdiction over Brown’s case. In

his brief on appeal, Brown makes clear that he is seeking review of a domestic-relations

order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County.3 As the Magistrate

Judge correctly concluded, however, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine strips federal courts of

jurisdiction over controversies “that are essentially appeals from state-court judgments.”

Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir.

2010); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284

1 See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 2 Brown did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 Based on the documents that Brown attached to his “notice of appeal in a civil case,” it appears that this judgment was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania subsequently denied allocatur. 2 (2005). Amendment would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d

103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, we will affirm.