From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Navarro v. Rodrigues

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Sep 24, 2014
574 F. App'x 928 (11th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 14-10380

09-24-2014

RAFAEL M. NAVARRO, Plaintiff, DANIEL K. SCHMIDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD RODRIGUES, President of Portside Condominium Homeowners Association, BRUCE DAVIDSON, Vice President of Portside Condominium Homeowners Association, PORTSIDE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Corporation, ANNETTE PAGE, TIMOTHY J. SLOAN, Attorney for Portside Condominium Homeowners Association, et al., Defendants-Appellees.


[DO NOT PUBLISH] Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00406-RS-GRJ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Daniel K. Schmidt, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's sua sponte pre-service dismissal of Schmidt's civil rights and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act complaint under the screening provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. We agree the wholly frivolous complaint failed to state any federal claim upon which relief can be granted and affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's order, No. 5:13-cv-00406-RS-GRJ, 2014 WL 51364 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2014), adopting the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Because there are no viable federal claims and the parties are not diverse, the district court properly dismissed the state-law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Navarro v. Rodrigues

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Sep 24, 2014
574 F. App'x 928 (11th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Navarro v. Rodrigues

Case Details

Full title:RAFAEL M. NAVARRO, Plaintiff, DANIEL K. SCHMIDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 24, 2014

Citations

574 F. App'x 928 (11th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Alachua Cnty. Sch. Bd.

Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, it should be dismissed. See, e.g.,…