N OT P RECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______ __________ No. 20

- 323 8

_______________
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

- 0005 5 District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy

_______ _______________

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

December 7 , 202 1

_______________ Before: McKEE, RESTREPO , and SMITH , Circuit Judges

( Opinion f

iled: 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 objectio ns 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 quarrel ed with

him. Magistrate Judge Miller entered a n 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 specifi ed 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 D istrict 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. § 129 1

. 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 Augu st 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 C ourt , 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 a dopted the R & R and dismissed Serieux’s
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 6 The C ourt 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

novo 8 and a denial of the motion for an extension for abuse of discretion. 9 Serieux can not succeed on either issue. There is no basis for federal jurisdiction apparent on the face of
Serieux’s complaint ; t here are neither any identifiable claims under federal law, nor is

there div ersity 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 result ed in a different outc ome.

We will therefore affirm the District Court.