Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03805/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03805-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Cline
Appellee
Sgt. Collins
Appellee
John Does
Appellee
Rex Donley
Appellee
Craig Fox
Appellee
Kenny Hannaford
Appellee
David Haskins
Appellee
Heath Hathcock
Appellee
Betty Heidi
Appellee
Gareth Heidi
Appellee
Heather Heidi
Appellee
Heath Humphries
Appellee
Tanya L. Morse
Appellant
William G. Morse
Appellant
Ozark County, Missouri
Appellee
Darrin Reed
Appellee
Heather Rooney-McBride
Appellee
David Rybolt
Appellee
Becky Strong
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3805

___________________________

William G. Morse; Tanya L. Morse

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Ozark County, Missouri; Gareth Heidi; Betty Heidi; Heather Heidi, Trustee;

Heather Rooney-McBride; Darrin Reed, Sheriff, Ozark County Sheriff

Department; Heath Hathcock, Deputy Sheriff, Ozark County Sheriff Department;

Sgt. Collins, Ozark County Sheriff Department; Kenny Hannaford, Deputy Sheriff,

Ozark County Sheriff Department; Thomas Cline, Ozark County Prosecuting

Attorney; Becky Strong, Ozark County Circuit Court Clerk; Craig Fox, Ozark

County Health Department; Rex Donley, Gainesville Livestock Auction; David

Haskins, Ozark 4 U Realty; Heath Humphries; Dr. David Rybolt, Missouri

Department of Agriculture (Division of Animal Health); John Does, 6-7

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: July 1, 2015

Filed: July 8, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

Appellate Case: 14-3805 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2015 Entry ID: 4292907 
PER CURIAM.

William G. and Tanya L. Morse appeal the district court’s dismissal of their

1

civil rights action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We find that the Morses did

not preserve any challenge to the district court’s conclusion that their action was

barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In response to the motions to dismiss for

2

lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction, they offered no argument in support ofjurisdiction,

see Nucor Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 891 F.2d 1343, 1346 (8th Cir. 1989)

(plaintiffs bear burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction); and in their

opening brief on appeal, they do not explain why the district court was wrong in

applying the doctrine, see Blakley v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 648 F.3d 921, 931-

32 (8th Cir. 2011) (where appellant did not actually challenge district court’s

conclusion that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking, any argument to this effect

on appeal is waived); see also McKenzie v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.,

761 F.3d 1149, 1155 (10th Cir. 2014) (where party presents unpreserved argument

against dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, appellate court does not exceed its power

by declining to consider it), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 970 (2015). Although the Morses

challenge the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in their reply brief, we

decline to consider these arguments. See Martin v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 390 F.3d 601,

608 n.4 (8th Cir. 2004) (appeals court will not consider issue first raised in reply

brief, absent some reason given by appellant for not raising and briefing issue in

opening brief); United States v. Vincent, 167 F.3d 428, 432 (8th Cir. 1999) (declining

to consider argument first raised in pro se reply brief). The judgment of the district

court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

See D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity

2

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

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3805 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2015 Entry ID: 4292907