# Powell v. Railroad Retirement Board (MAG+) > District Court, M.D. Alabama · October 17, 2024 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10631070 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, M.D. Alabama - **Decided:** October 17, 2024 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10631070 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that when there is a change in circumstances that warrant modifying a divorce order “a petition for modification may be proper” - holding that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to “review the division of marital property as determined in [the plaintiff’s] divorce proceedings” ## Opinion text IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION DAVID POWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:24-CV-257-RAH ) RAILROAD RETIREMENT ) BOARD, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER On August 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended this case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and without the opportunity to amend the complaint. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff David Powell has filed several motions, which the Court has construed as Objections (Doc. 12, Doc. 13, Doc. 14, Doc. 16) to the Recommendation. When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Gopie, 347 F. App’x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783-85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. Id. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. As an initial matter “[f]ederal courts ‘are courts of limited jurisdiction’ that ‘possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’” United States v. Salmona, 810 F.3d 806, 810 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life. Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Powell believes this court has subject matter jurisdiction because he has a letter from the Railroad Retirement Board (“RRB”). The letter instructs Plaintiff to obtain a court order to modify the divorce order of the Circuit Court of Cook County that mandates that Plaintiff’s partitions should be paid to his former spouse. Plaintiff also objects to the Report and Recommendation claiming that this Court has authority to review a decision of the RRB. In summary, Plaintiff challenges a domestic relations order of the Circuit Court of Cook County regarding the distribution of his Railroad Retirement Act benefits to his ex-wife and/or seeks review of a decision by the Railroad Retirement Board to comply with the domestic relations order. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to preside over either of these matters. First, it is well established that “federal courts will not review or modify a state court divorce order even when the plaintiff couches the claims in other terms.” McCavey v. Barnett, 629 F. App’x 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to “review the division of marital property as determined in [the plaintiff’s] divorce proceedings”). Alabama trial courts have the authority to modify divorce orders. Wade v. Wade, 518 So. 2d 149, 150 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987 (“Modifications of periodic alimony awards can be made only upon a showing of changed circumstances since the last change in the award.”); Ala. Code § 30-2-51. Since the RRB is simply obeying the divorce order it does not seem to be the proper party for Plaintiff to seek relief from. Rather it seems to this Court that the more appropriate course of action for Plaintiff would be to file a petition for modification of divorce decree in the Alabama trial court that entered his divorce order, which appears to be the Circuit Court of Cook County. Murphree v. Murphree, 582 So. 2d 574, 576 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) (holding that when there is a change in circumstances that warrant modifying a divorce order “a petition for modification may be proper”). Second, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review a final decision by the RRB because the United States courts of appeals are granted jurisdiction over such matters by federal statute. 45 U.S.C. § 355 (“Any claimant . . .may . . . obtain a review of any final decision of the Board by filing a petition for review within ninety days ...in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the claimant or other party resides or will have had his principal place of business or principal executive office, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia... .”). Consequently, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Objections (Doc. 12, Doc. 13, Doc. 14, Doc. 16) are OVERRULED and DENIED; 2. The Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED; 3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED; 4. Defendant’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED (Doc. 15); 5. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. DONE, on this the 17th day of October 2024. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10631070. Public record. Not legal advice.