eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 2019-08

Lisa Brown v. Jason Brown ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
3