Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02039/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02039-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2039 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/04/2016 Pg: 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).

Appeal: 15-2039 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/04/2016 Pg: 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

Appeal: 15-2039 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 3