Dwayne M. Garrett; Shirley Garrett v. Mary Fallon; Lexie P. Norwood; Gary Jones; Michael Horowitz

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[Unpublished]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.

-- 1 of 2 --

Dwayne Garrett and Shirley Garrett appeal after the district court dismissed1
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 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.
______________________________
The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, then United States Chief District Judge for1
the Western District of Arkansas, now United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas.
See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v.2
Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --