Blalock v. State Farm Insurance , 201 F. App'x 295 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10713
Summary Calendar
MARCUS BLALOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CV-687
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Marcus Blalock filed a civil complaint naming State Farm
Insurance Company and Dorothy Smith as defendants, alleging that
he was involved in an automobile accident with Smith who was
insured by State Farm. The district court dismissed the action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The district court determined that diversity of citizenship
between the parties did not exist and that a United States
Government plaintiff was not a party to the action, despite
Blalock’s contrary indication when he filed his complaint.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-10713
-2-
Blalock has abandoned his appeal with respect to these
determinations by failing to challenge them. See Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
Blalock argues that the district court had jurisdiction
because State Farm’s denial of his personal injury claims
violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). No indication of any ADA claim “affirmatively appear[ed]”
on the face of Blalock’s complaint. Margin v. Sea-Land Servs.,
Inc., 812 F.2d 973, 976 (5th Cir. 1987). Thus the district court
did not err in dismissing the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332; Nauru Phosphate
Royalties, Inc. v. Drago Daic Interests, Inc., 138 F.3d 160, 163
n.1 (5th Cir. 1998); Margin, 812 F.2d at 976.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Blalock’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.