CourtListener opinion 10631070

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 
 EASTERN DIVISION 

DAVID POWELL, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
 v. ) CASE NO. 3:24-CV-257-RAH 
 ) 
RAILROAD RETIREMENT ) 
BOARD, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 ORDER 
 On August 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended this case be 
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and without the 
opportunity to amend the complaint. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff David Powell has filed 
several motions, which the Court has construed as Objections (Doc. 12, Doc. 13, 
Doc. 14, Doc. 16) to the Recommendation. 
 When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, 
the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 
The district court "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; 
receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with 
instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district 
court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. 
Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990); see also United 
States v. Gopie, 347 F. App'x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections 
to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific 

in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 
783-85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for 
clear error. Id. 

 Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's determination that this Court lacks 
subject matter jurisdiction. As an initial matter "[f]ederal courts ‘are courts of 
limited jurisdiction' that ‘possess only that power authorized by Constitution and 
statute.'" United States v. Salmona, 810 F.3d 806, 810 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life. Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Powell 
believes this court has subject matter jurisdiction because he has a letter from the 
Railroad Retirement Board ("RRB"). The letter instructs Plaintiff to obtain a court 

order to modify the divorce order of the Circuit Court of Cook County that mandates 
that Plaintiff's partitions should be paid to his former spouse. Plaintiff also objects 
to the Report and Recommendation claiming that this Court has authority to review 
a decision of the RRB. In summary, Plaintiff challenges a domestic relations order 

of the Circuit Court of Cook County regarding the distribution of his Railroad 
Retirement Act benefits to his ex-wife and/or seeks review of a decision by the 
Railroad Retirement Board to comply with the domestic relations order. 
 This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to preside over either of these 
matters. First, it is well established that "federal courts will not review or modify a 

state court divorce order even when the plaintiff couches the claims in other terms." 
McCavey v. Barnett, 629 F. App'x 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that federal 
courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to "review the division of marital property as 

determined in [the plaintiff's] divorce proceedings"). Alabama trial courts have the 
authority to modify divorce orders. Wade v. Wade, 518 So. 2d 149, 150 (Ala. Civ. 
App. 1987 ("Modifications of periodic alimony awards can be made only upon a 
showing of changed circumstances since the last change in the award."); Ala. Code 

§ 30-2-51. Since the RRB is simply obeying the divorce order it does not seem to be 
the proper party for Plaintiff to seek relief from. Rather it seems to this Court that 
the more appropriate course of action for Plaintiff would be to file a petition for 

modification of divorce decree in the Alabama trial court that entered his divorce 
order, which appears to be the Circuit Court of Cook County. Murphree v. 
Murphree, 582 So. 2d 574, 576 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) (holding that when there is a 
change in circumstances that warrant modifying a divorce order "a petition for 

modification may be proper"). 
 Second, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review a final decision by the 
RRB because the United States courts of appeals are granted jurisdiction over such 

matters by federal statute. 45 U.S.C. § 355 ("Any claimant . . .may . . . obtain a 
review of any final decision of the Board by filing a petition for review within ninety 
days ...in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the claimant or 
other party resides or will have had his principal place of business or principal 
executive office, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit or 
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia... ."). 
Consequently, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this court lacks 
subject matter jurisdiction. 
 Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED as 
follows: 

1. The Objections (Doc. 12, Doc. 13, Doc. 14, Doc. 16) are OVERRULED and 
 DENIED; 
2. The Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED; 
3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED; 
4. Defendant's Motion to Seal is GRANTED (Doc. 15); 
5. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 
DONE, on this the 17th day of October 2024. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE