John F. Pullins v. Dean W. Hagins, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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).
Case: 15-11789 Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

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.
Case: 15-11789 Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --