John F. Pullins v. Dean W. Hagins, et al, No. 15-11789 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-11789 Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-11789 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00226-TJC-PDB JOHN F. PULLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DEAN W. HAGINS, an individual, R&J TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC., a Florida Corporation, JOHN R. GAINEY, an individual, STEVEN L. WORLEY, an individual, DUVAL COUNTY COURTHOUSE, a municipality, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (February 9, 2016) Case: 15-11789 Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Page: 2 of 3 Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: John Pullins, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order remanding in part and dismissing with prejudice in part his claims under state law and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 action for violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Pullins contends that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over any of Pullins’s claims because they were barred by the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine, that the district court erred in denying Pullins’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, and that the district court erred in dismissing his claims because Pullins sufficiently alleged that the appellees violated his rights. After review, 2 we conclude that Pullins fails to articulate any non-frivolous basis for reversal and affirm for the reasons identified in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 1 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 2 We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009), and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting as true the facts alleged in the complaint and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of leave to amend a complaint, but review de novo any legal conclusion as to whether amendment would have been futile. SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2010). 2 Case: 15-11789 Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Page: 3 of 3 Although we find this appeal to be frivolous, due to Pullins’s pro se status, we deny the pending motion for damages and costs under Rule 38, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Woods v. IRS, 3 F.3d 403, 404 (11th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
