Hamilton v. Ranger Enterprises

Tenth Circuit

Hamilton v. Ranger Enterprises

144 F. App'x 753

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 2005

Docket05-4050

StatusUnpublished

This text of 144 F. App'x 753 (Hamilton v. Ranger Enterprises) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Ranger Enterprises, 144 F. App'x 753 (10th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

On December 5, 2003, Appellant Tony Alexander Hamilton 2 filed a complaint in federal district court, asserting the court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court dis *754 missed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Hamilton had failed to demonstrate that the claims asserted against Defendant arose under federal law. The court further concluded Hamilton had failed to allege diversity jurisdiction and that his complaint failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.1995) (holding that the requisite amount in controversy and the existence of diversity must be affirmatively established in the pleading of the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction).

This court reviews the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir.1999) Based on our review of the record, the pleadings, and the arguments asserted by Hamilton in his appellate brief, we conclude the district court did not err when it dismissed Hamilton’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order of February 14, 2005 dismissing Hamilton’s complaint.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the ease, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

2

. Appellant also refers to himself in various documents as Tony-Alexander: Hamilton.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

On December 5, 2003, Appellant Tony Alexander Hamilton 2 filed a complaint in federal district court, asserting the court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court dis *754 missed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Hamilton had failed to demonstrate that the claims asserted against Defendant arose under federal law. The court further concluded Hamilton had failed to allege diversity jurisdiction and that his complaint failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.1995) (holding that the requisite amount in controversy and the existence of diversity must be affirmatively established in the pleading of the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction).

This court reviews the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir.1999) Based on our review of the record, the pleadings, and the arguments asserted by Hamilton in his appellate brief, we conclude the district court did not err when it dismissed Hamilton’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order of February 14, 2005 dismissing Hamilton’s complaint.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the ease, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

2

. Appellant also refers to himself in various documents as Tony-Alexander: Hamilton.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F. App'x 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-ranger-enterprises-ca10-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack