Francis Serieux v. Frank Jones

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 20-3239
_______________
FRANCIS B. SERIEUX,
Appellant
v.
FRANK JONES,
SUPERVISOR L. BOYNES
________________________
On Appeal from the District Court
for the Virgin Islands
District Court No. 3-20-cv-00056
District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy
______________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on
December 9, 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
Frank Jones for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because 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, we will
affirm.1
I.
Serieux filed a complaint, alleging that Jones told him that the Court was not
accepting any paperwork and was closed on May 4, 2020. Magistrate Judge Miller
entered an R & R recommending dismissal of Serieux’s complaint against Jones for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.2 Judge Miller found no basis in Serieux’s allegations that
invoked 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 District
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. Frank, No. 3:20-cv-00056, 2020 WL 5087878, at *3 (Dist. C. V.I.
Aug. 28, 2020) (Miller, Mag. J.).
3
Id.2
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.
On August 18, Serieux filed a motion for a one-month extension to make his
objections.5 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, dismissing Serieux’s
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying Serieux’s request for an
extension to file objections to the R & R.7 The Court concluded 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 district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction de novo9 and its denial of a motion for an extension for abuse
4
Id.5
ECF 4.
6
At that time, the District Court had 18, rather than 24, complaints docketed for Serieux.
Serieux, 2020 WL 5087878, at *1 n.1.
7
Id. at *3.
8
Id. at *2.
9
Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004).
3
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 neither any identifiable
claims under federal law, nor diversity of citizenship.
Although Serieux arguably has shown good cause for his motion for an extension
of time to file objections, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion. Moreover, given the nature of the substance of his claim, an extension would not
have resulted in a different outcome.
We therefore affirm the District Court.
10
Drippe v. Tobelinski, 604 F.3d 778, 783 (3d Cir. 2010).
4