Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Brooks v. Shope, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss Darrell Brooks' civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying Brooks' motion to alter or amend judgment. The district court found that Brooks failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not a citizen of North Carolina, and thus complete diversity of citizenship was lacking. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's jurisdictional findings of fact for clear error and found no reversible error, as Brooks did not carry his burden of demonstrating the district court's jurisdiction over the matter.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Brooks v. Shope, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    115 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss Darrell Brooks' civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying Brooks' motion to alter or amend judgment. The district court found that Brooks failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not a citizen of North Carolina, and thus complete diversity of citizenship was lacking. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's jurisdictional findings of fact for clear error and found no reversible error, as Brooks did not carry his burden of demonstrating the district court's jurisdiction over the matter.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-05-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-1763

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss Darrell Brooks' civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying Brooks' motion to alter or amend judgment. The district court found that Brooks failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not a citizen of North Carolina, and thus complete diversity of citizenship was lacking. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's jurisdictional findings of fact for clear error and found no reversible error, as Brooks did not carry his burden of demonstrating the district court's jurisdiction over the matter.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    115 views3 pages

    Brooks v. Shope, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss Darrell Brooks' civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying Brooks' motion to alter or amend judgment. The district court found that Brooks failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not a citizen of North Carolina, and thus complete diversity of citizenship was lacking. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's jurisdictional findings of fact for clear error and found no reversible error, as Brooks did not carry his burden of demonstrating the district court's jurisdiction over the matter.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The case discusses the dismissal of a civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to incomplete diversity of citizenship between the parties. The appellate court affirms the district court's ruling.

    The case is about Darrell Brooks appealing the district court's orders granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss Brooks's civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment.

    The court reviews the district court's jurisdictional findings of fact on any issues that are not intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the plaintiff's claims under the clearly erroneous standard and any legal conclusions flowing therefrom de novo.

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-1763

    DARRELL BROOKS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    LLOYD LAYMAN SHOPE; ENTERPRISE CAR
    COMPANY; FORD AIR BAG MANUFACTURER,

    RENTAL;

    FORD

    MOTOR

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Frank D. Whitney,
    District Judge. (3:09-cv-00334-FDW-DSC)

    Submitted:

    May 19, 2011

    Before TRAXLER,
    Judges.

    Chief

    Decided:

    Judge,

    and

    AGEE

    and

    May 23, 2011

    KEENAN,

    Circuit

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Darrell Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.


    Fred Fincher Jarrell, K&L
    GATES LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Robert A. Hartsoe, HARTSOE
    & ASSOCIATES, PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Kirk Gibson
    Warner, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN,
    LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Darrell
    granting

    the

    Brooks

    appeals

    Defendants

    the

    motions

    to

    district

    courts

    orders

    dismiss

    Brookss

    civil

    action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his


    motion to alter or amend judgment.

    On appeal, Brooks contends

    that the district court erroneously found him to be a citizen of


    North Carolina and thus found complete diversity of citizenship
    to be lacking.

    We affirm.

    If the district court determines at any time that it


    lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
    action.
    the

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

    existence

    of

    subject

    matter

    When a defendant challenges


    jurisdiction

    in

    fact,

    the

    plaintiff bears the burden of proving the truth of such facts by


    a

    preponderance

    of

    the

    evidence.

    United

    States

    ex.

    Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009).

    rel.

    Unless

    the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central


    to

    the

    dispute,

    the

    district

    court

    may

    resolve

    the

    jurisdictional facts in dispute by considering evidence outside


    the pleadings, such as affidavits.

    Id. at 348.

    Citizenship, like the other ingredients or elements


    of diversity jurisdiction . . . presents a preliminary question
    of fact to be determined by the trial court.
    F.2d 1169, 1171 (4th Cir. 1979).

    Sligh v. Doe, 596

    We review a district courts

    jurisdictional
    intertwined

    findings

    with

    the

    of

    fact

    facts

    on

    any

    central

    issues

    to

    the

    that

    are

    not

    merits

    of

    the

    plaintiffs claims under the clearly erroneous standard and any


    legal conclusions flowing therefrom de novo.

    Vuyyuru, 555 F.3d

    at 348.
    Mindful

    of

    these

    standards,

    record and find no reversible error.

    we

    have

    reviewed

    the

    Brooks failed to carry his

    burden of demonstrating the district courts jurisdiction over


    the matter.

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts orders.

    We

    with

    dispense

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like