Francis Serieux v. Trevor Velinor

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 20-3237
_______________
FRANCIS B. SERIEUX,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER TREVOR VELINOR
________________________
On Appeal from the District Court
for the Virgin Islands
District Court No. 3-20-cv-00053
District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy
______________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on
December 6, 2021
_______________
Before: McKEE, RESTREPO, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 9, 2022)
______________
OPINION*
______________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and under I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
McKee, Circuit Judge.
Francis B. Serieux appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his claim against
Police Commissioner Trevor Velinor for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude
that the District Court did not err in adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations for dismissal or denying Serieux’s motion for an extension to file
objections to the R & R. Accordingly, we will affirm.1
I.
Serieux alleged that Velinor and other officers failed to provide certain
information and that they failed to call him back after agreeing to. Magistrate Judge
Miller entered an R & R, recommending dismissal of Serieux’s complaint against Velinor
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 Judge Miller found no basis in Serieux’s
invocation of federal question or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1332.3 The R & R provided that “[a]ny objections to this [R & R] must be filed in writing
within 14 days of receipt of this notice[, and f]ailure to file objections within the specified
time shall bar the aggrieved party from attacking such [R & R] before the assigned
1
The Magistrate Judge screened the pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because
Serieux is proceeding pro se in forma pauperis. The District Court reviewed de novo only
those portions of the R & R to which the party has objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). We
have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
R & R, Serieux v. Velinor, No. 3:20-cv-00053, 2020 WL 5087879, at *3 (D.V.I. Aug. 4,
2020) (Miller, Mag. J.).
3
Id.2
District Court Judge.”4 The next day, the R & R was sent to Serieux via certified mail;
thus the deadline for Serieux to file objections was August 24, 2020.5
On August 18, Serieux filed a motion for a one-month extension to make his
objections. Serieux claimed he was awaiting copies of his complaints from the court as he
was sent the wrong documents and the print was too small for him to read. Serieux also
claimed that it was impossible for him to correct the complaints for his twenty-four cases
within the prescribed fourteen days.6
On August 28, the District Court adopted the R & R and dismissed Serieux’s
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.7 The Court addressed Serieux’s request
for an extension to file objections to the R & R, by finding that Serieux’s assertions did
not constitute good cause as he did not present circumstances of unforeseen or
uncontrollable events.8
II.
Serieux raises two issues on appeal: (1) the dismissal of his complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) the denial of his motion for an extension to file
objections to the R & R. We review a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de
4
Id.5
Serieux v. Velinor, No. 3:20-cv-00053, 2020 WL 5087879, at *2 (D.V.I. Aug. 28,
2020).
6
The District Court had 18, rather than 24, complaints docketed for Serieux.
7
Serieux v. Velinor, No. 3:20-cv-00053, 2020 WL 5087879, at *3 (D.V.I. Aug. 28,
2020).
8
Id. at *2.
3
novo9 and a denial of the motion for an extension for abuse of discretion.10 Serieux
cannot succeed on either issue. There is no basis for federal jurisdiction apparent on the
face of Serieux’s complaint; there are no identifiable claims under federal law, nor is
there diversity of citizenship.
Although it could be argued that good cause supported Serieux’s motion for
extended time to file objections to the R & R, the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that it was lacking. Moreover, we note that, given the nature of
the claims, an extension would not have resulted in a different outcome.
We will therefore affirm the District Court.
9
Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004).
10
Drippe v. Tobelinski, 604 F.3d 778, 783 (3d Cir. 2010).
4