Astrop v. Brunswick Co Transp ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-1698
    HENRY LEWIS ASTROP,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    BRUNSWICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FOR BRUNSWICK
    COUNTY SCHOOLS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (CA-05-392-3)
    Submitted:   October 20, 2005             Decided:   October 26, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Henry Lewis Astrop, Appellant Pro Se. Abbigale Bricker Fredrick,
    THE CONRAD FIRM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Henry Lewis Astrop appeals the district court's order
    dismissing     his    civil    action     for   lack     of     subject    matter
    jurisdiction.    As the district court noted, Astrop has not alleged
    facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction based on diversity of
    citizenship.     See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
     (2000).           Further, there is no
    basis in law or fact for any claim against the United States.                   To
    the extent Astrop’s complaint could have been construed as an
    action   under   
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
       (2000),      Astrop   admits     in   his
    complaint that he was not injured in the automobile accident at
    issue.   We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, although we deny Brunswick County Transportation’s
    motion to dismiss, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the
    district court. See Astrop v. Brunswick County Transp., No. CA-05-
    392-3 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2005).           We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1698

Filed Date: 10/26/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014