Wall v. Tanner Clinic, 691 F. App'x 525

Jared Wall, proceeding pro se, sued Tanner Clinic and related employees/entities in federal court alleging medical malpractice.
On his civil cover sheet Wall indicated all parties were Utah residents and checked the box for federal-question jurisdiction.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Wall referenced a prior state-court dismissal under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act and asserted due-process concerns.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; Wall did not timely object, and the district court adopted the recommendation.
The panel assumed, for judicial-economy reasons, an "interests of justice" exception to the usual waiver rule based on Wall's claimed medical inability to timely object, and reviewed the jurisdictional dismissal de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction	Wall vaguely invoked due-process and checked federal-question on the cover sheet, implying federal jurisdiction	Defendants: complaint alleges only state-law medical-malpractice claims and the parties are non-diverse Utah residents	No federal jurisdiction: complaint fails to plead diversity or a substantial federal question; dismissal affirmed
Whether the complaint raises a substantial federal question	Wall contended his constitutional due-process rights were implicated	Defendants argued the claims are state-law malpractice without necessary federal issues	Court: bare references to due process are insufficient; no federal question alleged
Whether failure to object to R&R waived appellate review	Wall claimed medical inability to file timely objections	Defendants relied on waiver rule	Court assumed "interests of justice" exception applied and proceeded to review on the merits
Whether liberal construction of pro se filings supplies jurisdictional facts	Wall relied on pro se status and liberal construction	Defendants argued liberal construction cannot create jurisdiction where none is alleged	Court: even under liberal construction, complaint lacks facts establishing federal jurisdiction

Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 790 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard of de novo review for jurisdictional dismissals)
Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507 (10th Cir. 1972) (federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint)
Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., 440 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (scope of "substantial federal question" under § 1331)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se complaints are construed liberally but still must allege jurisdictional facts)
Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2008) (waiver of appellate review for failure to object to a magistrate judge's R&R and the "interests of justice" exception)