Earl A. Bryant v. Hutchinson Auto Mall , 489 F. App'x 347 ( 2012 )

Case: 12-10567 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10567
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cv-00079-CHW
EARL A. BRYANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HUTCHINSON AUTO MALL,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
____________________________
(September 6, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s
Case: 12-10567 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 2 of 2
dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. First, Earl Bryant’s
complaint against Hutchinson Auto Mall did not assert any federal claims. Thus, there
was no federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, according to
the complaint and its attachments, Mr. Bryant and Hutchinson Auto Mall were both
citizens of Georgia, and Mr. Bryant sought only $2,400 in damages. As a result, there
was no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Underwriters at Lloyd’s,
London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2010) (“For federal
diversity jurisdiction to attach, all parties must be completely diverse and the amount
in controversy must exceed $75,000.” (citations omitted)). Third, Mr. Bryant has
failed to address the jurisdictional issues in his brief, and they are therefore waived.
See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When
an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.”).
AFFIRMED.
2