Lisa Brown v. Jason Brown

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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

3

(2005). Amendment would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, we will affirm.