Jermaine Capel v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services Division of Child Support…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2039
JERMAINE CAPEL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT; NORFOLK JUVENILE AND
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT; CHESAPEAKE JUVENILE AND
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:15-cv—00227-AWA-LRL)
Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: April 4, 2016
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine Capel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Capel appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint challenging the
calculation of his child support payments. For the reasons set
forth below, we affirm.
Although the district court dismissed the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted after Capel failed
to cure the identified deficiencies in his complaint, we find
that no amendment to the complaint in this case would have cured
the fact that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. See Cantor v. Cohen, 442 F.3d 196, 202 (4th Cir.
2006) (noting “the long established precedent that federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and generally abstain
from hearing child custody matters”).
Moreover, the record reveals that the Chesapeake Juvenile
and Domestic Relations District Court ordered Capel in December
2014 to pay $4620.18 in arrears to support his son. Because
Capel appears to be seeking review of this state court order in
federal court, his action is barred under the Rooker-Feldman*
doctrine.
* D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We therefore affirm the district court’s order on the
ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Capel’s
claims. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --