NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 20-3238

_______________

FRANCIS B. SERIEUX,

Appellant

v.

SGT. L. FRANCIS;

JANE DOE

 

________________________

On Appeal from the District Court

for the Virgin Islands

District Court No. 3-20-cv-00055

District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy

______________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on

December 7, 2021

_______________

Before: McKEE, RESTREPO, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 9, 2022)

______________

OPINION*

______________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and under I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
2

McKee, Circuit Judge.

Francis B. Serieux appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his claim for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Because the District Court did not err in adopting the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations or denying Serieux’s motion for an

extension to file objections to the R & R, we will affirm.1

I.

Serieux brought a complaint against an unnamed officer, alleging that when she

took a report from him she failed to put her name on the report and also quarreled with 

him. Magistrate Judge Miller entered an R & R recommending dismissal of Serieux’s 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as it failed to raise federal question or 

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.2 The R & R provided that 

“[a]ny objections to this [R & R] must be filed in writing within 14 days of receipt of this 

notice[, and f]ailure to file objections within the specified time shall bar the aggrieved 

party from attacking such [R & R] before the assigned District Court Judge.”3 The next 

day, the R & R was sent to Serieux via certified mail; thus, the deadline for Serieux to file 

objections was August 24, 2020.4

1 The Magistrate Judge screened the pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because 

Serieux is proceeding pro se in forma pauperis. The District Court reviewed de novo only 

those portions of the R & R to which the party has objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). We 

have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

2 R & R, Serieux v. Doe, No. 3:20-cv-00055, 2020 WL 6864536, at *3 (Dist. C. V.I. Aug. 

5, 2020) (Miller, Mag. J.).

3

Id. 

4 Serieux v. Jane Doe, No. 3:20-cv-00055, 2020 WL 5016918, at *3 (Dist. C. V.I. Aug. 

25, 2020).
3

On August 18, Serieux filed a motion for a one-month extension to file his 

objections. He claimed he was awaiting copies of his complaints for the Court, as he was 

sent the wrong documents and the print was too small from him to read. He also claimed 

that it was impossible for him to correct the complaints for his twenty-four cases within 

the prescribed fourteen days.5

On August 25, the District Court adopted the R & R and dismissed Serieux’s 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.6 The Court also concluded that Serieux 

had not established good cause for an extension to file objections to the R & R.

7

II.

Serieux raises two issues on appeal: (1) the dismissal of his complaint for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) the denial of his motion for an extension to file 

objections to the R & R. We review a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de 

novo8and a denial of the motion for an extension for abuse of discretion.9 Serieux cannot

succeed on either issue. There is no basis for federal jurisdiction apparent on the face of 

Serieux’s complaint; there are neither any identifiable claims under federal law, nor is 

there diversity of citizenship. 

5 The District Court had 18, rather than 24, complaints docketed for Serieux.

6 Serieux v. Doe, No. 3:20-cv-00055, 2020 WL 5016918, at *4 (Dist. C. V.I. Aug. 25, 

2020).

7

Id. at *3. 

8 Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004).

9 Drippe v. Tobelinski, 604 F.3d 778, 783 (3d Cir. 2010). 
4

Moreover, given the nature of the allegations, the District Court clearly did not 

abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an extension of time to object to the R & R. 

An extension would not have resulted in a different outcome. 

We will therefore affirm the District Court.