Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Richard Darrell Trigg, Petitioner v. Mary Katherine Jones, et al.

V

FILED: October 30, 2017

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1801

(2: 17-cv-00013-JPJ-PMS)

RICHARD DARRELL TRIUG

Plaintiff Appellant

-

V.

MARY KATHERINE JONES; ERNEST HAROLD JONES; JERI MORRILL;

JOANNE HARDY; WILLIAM (BILL) HORACE HORTON; JANET HORTON;

CLAIRE HORTON; DAVID HORTON; CONNIE HORTON; DANIEL

HORTON; CHAD JONES; LETSA WINTZ

Defendants Appellees

-

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the decision of this court, the judgment of the district

court is affirmed.

This judgment shall take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in

accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41.

/s/ PATRICIA S. CONNOR, CLERK

I

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1801

RICHARD DARRELL TRIGG,

Plaintiff Appellant,

-

MARY KATHERINE JONES; ERNEST HAROLD JONES; JERI MORRILL;

JOANNE HARDY; WILLIAM (BILL) HORACE HORTON; JANET HORTON;

CLAIRE HORTON; DAVID HORTON; CONNIE HORTON; DANIEL

HORTON; CHAD JONES; LEISA WJNTZ,

Defendants Appellees.

-

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big

Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:I7-cv-00013-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: October 24, 2017

Decided: October 30, 2017

Before WILKINSON. SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Darrell Trigg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURJAM:

Richard Darrell Trigg appeals the district court's order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint on initial review

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). The district court held that Trigg did not have

standing to raise the claims he asserted, and that his claims were barred by the Rooker—

Feldman doctrine. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker

v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). We affirm the dismissal without prejudice of

Trigg's complaint, though not on the grounds articulated by the magistrate judge and

adopted by the district court.

We review de novo a district court's dismissal for lack of standing, Bishop v.

Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419, 423 (4th Cir. 2009), and a district court's dismissal pursuant to the

Rooker—Feldman doctrine, Burrell v. Virginia, 395 F.3d 508, 511 (4th Cir. 2005).

Because Trigg sought relief based, at least in part, on allegations that Defendants' actions

caused him personally to suffer financial harm, we conclude that dismissal of this action

for lack of standing was unwarranted.

See Bishop, 575 F.3d at 423 (discussing

constitutional and prudential components of standing). Further, while Trigg's complaint

contains multiple references to a Tennessee divorce judgment, we do not read his

complaint as inviting the district court to review or disturb that judgment. Consequently,

the Rooker—Feldman doctrine does not apply. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280,284 (2005).

However, we affirm the district court's dismissal on the alternate ground that

Trigg's complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

2

IL

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Wiliner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 103 (4th Cir. 2017)

(this court may

affirm district court's judgment on any ground appearing in the record). Trigg's claims

for relief were based on a now-repealed Tennessee statute that criminalized the

exploitation of vulnerable adults. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-111(2015) (repealed

2017). Although this statute created a private right of action, Trigg did not plausibly

allege that he was among the individuals entitled to bring such an action, see id. § 39-14111(h), nor does it appear that any of Defendants' alleged activities occurred during the

period the statute was in effect. To the extent Trigg attempted to raise any other cause of

action, his allegations were too vague and conclusory to state a plausible claim for relief.

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). As a result, this action was subject to

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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

91

CLERA'S UFHCE U.S. 01ST. COURT

ATASINGDCJN VA

-

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

BIG STONE GAP DIVISION

Ii

' 2017

JUL C.

RICHARD DARRELL TRIGG,

Case No. 2:17CV00013

Plaintiff,

I) 1I) *

V.

By: James P. Jones

United States District Judge

MARY KATHERINE JONES, ET AL.,

Defendants.

It appearing proper, it is ORDERED as follows:

Following de novo review, Plaintiffs Objections to Proposed

Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 4) are OVERRULED;

and

The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (ECF No.

3)

is fully ACCEPTED;

Plaintiffs action is DISMISSED; and

The clerk shall close the case.

ECF

DOCUMENT

I hereby attest and certify that this is a printed copy of

a document that was electronically flied with the

United States District Court for the Western District

of Virginia.

Date Filed

J•

Julie C. Dudlej, Clerk of Court

JTBy

ENTER: June 16, 2017

UDic Judge

LI)

Depuly CIC*

Case 2:17-cv-00013-JPJ-PMS Document 5 Filed 06/16/17 Page

1 of 1 Pageid#: 25

CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

ATABINGOON VA

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT. COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

BIG STONE GAP DIVISION

MAY 2 62017

BY42

)

)

) REPORT AND

) RECOMMENDATION

) Civil Action No. 2:17cv00013

)

)

RICHARD DARRELL TRIGG,

Plaintiff

V.

MARY KATHERINE JONES, et al.,

Defendants

S

This matter is before the court on the pro se plaintiff's application to proceed

in forma pauperis. Based on the undersigned's review of the application, the court

GRANTS the application and instructs the Clerk's Office to file the Complaint

without the prepayment of fees.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the undersigned recommends that

the court dismiss the plaintiff's claims contained in the Complaint because they fail

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In particular, the undersigned

finds that, based on the facts alleged, the plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims on

behalf of his former spouse. The undersigned also finds that the court lacks

jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims because they challenge state court

decisions. See D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr..

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).

Notice to Parties

Notice is hereby given to the parties of the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A.

§636(b)(1)(C) (West 2006 & Supp. 2016):

1

16

Case 2:17-cv-00013-JPJ-PMS Document 3 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 2 Paged#:

L

...

"

,L

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of this

Report and Recommendation], any party may serve and file written

objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as

provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of

the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The

judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions.

Failure to file timely written objections to these proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days could waive appellate review. At the conclusion

of the 14-day period, the Clerk is directed to transmit the record in this matter to

the Honorable James P. Jones, United States District Judge.

The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this Report and

Recommendation to the pro se plaintiff.

DATED: May 26, 2017.

Tamda 9z&a14 aet

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ECF

DOCUMENT

I hereby attest and certify that this is a printed copy of

a document that was electronically flied with the

United States District Court for the Western District

of Virginia.

Date, Fied

JuR

Deputy C'erk

2

of 2 Pageid#: 17

Case 2:17-cv-00013-JPJ-PMS Document 3 flied 05/26/17 Page 2

Additional material

from this filing is

availablevri the

Clerk's Office.