Dwayne Garrett v. Mary Fallon, No. 18-3267 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Bowman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Dismissal affirmed without comment. [ June 19, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3267 ___________________________ Dwayne M. Garrett; Shirley Garrett lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. Mary Fallon; Lexie P. Norwood; Gary Jones; Michael Horowitz lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: June 13, 2019 Filed: June 20, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dwayne Garrett and Shirley Garrett appeal after the district court1 dismissed their complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under the Rooker-Feldman2 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 (2005) (Under the RookerFeldman 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. ______________________________ 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 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). -2-
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.
