Joseph Michael Bova, Jr v. Ray Sajone; Cathy Moffat Sajone

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-3132
__________
JOSEPH MICHAEL BOVA, JR.,
Appellant
v.
RAY SAJONE; CATHY MOFFAT SAJONE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00258)
District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 4, 2026
Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and BOVE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed March 5, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Joseph Michael Bova, Jr. appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We will affirm.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
I.
Bova filed a complaint with allegations focused on the events surrounding his
father’s death. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction, and granted Bova leave to amend his complaint. Bova’s amended complaint
failed to cure the jurisdictional deficiency, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that
the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Over Bova’s
objections, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation
and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.
Bova’s timely appeal followed. He has submitted an informal brief in support of
his appeal.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
District Court’s dismissal of Bova’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See
In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 632 (3d Cir.
2017).
III.
We will affirm the District Court’s order because Bova failed to provide any basis
for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Bova’s arguments mostly reiterate
the ideas expressed in his complaint, and do not address the issue of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Nowhere in his complaint did Bova allege that his claims were being brought
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; thus, the District Court

-- 2 of 3 --

3
correctly concluded that it did not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331.
Nor did Bova plead diversity jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity
jurisdiction exists in civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and
the opposing parties are citizens of different states. In his amended complaint, Bova did
not address his citizenship or that of the defendants; however, in his initial complaint he
provided a Pennsylvania address for himself, and a Pennsylvania address for the
defendants as well. Bova, as the plaintiff in this case, was required to plead the grounds
for jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC,
800 F.3d 99, 106 (3d Cir. 2015). As the District Court concluded, Bova failed to allege
that diversity jurisdiction existed. See GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC,
888 F.3d 29, 34 (3d Cir. 2018) (“The citizenship of a natural person is the state where
that person is domiciled.”).
Finally, the District Court did not err in concluding that granting Bova further
leave to amend would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 113
(3d Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --