GARRETT v. FALLON (2019)

[Unpublished]

Dwayne Garrett and Shirley Garrett appeal after the district court ¹ dismissed their complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under the Rooker-Feldman ² doctrine.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the Garretts’ complaint. See Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1088 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 291-92, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts are precluded from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction in action where losing party in state court complains of injury caused by state-court judgment and seeks review and rejection of that judgment.).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, then United States Chief District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, now United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

2.   See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).

PER CURIAM.