Antoine v. Mellon Bank

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1326
HILL ANTOINE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MELLON BANK,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Hill Antoine on brief pro se.
September 16, 2005
Per Curiam. After preliminarily screening this in forma
pauperis complaint, the district court ordered the pro se
appellant, Hill Antoine, to file a more definite statement showing
the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Antoine
responded, and the district court dismissed the suit, finding that
"no ground for the exercise of federal jurisdiction" had been
suggested. We affirm.
On appeal, Antoine contends that he is bringing his suit
under Title VII and state law, and he provides numerous factual
details about his claim. He did not present these facts to the
district court, although he knew that the court was contemplating
dismissing his suit. He does not explain why he failed to take the
opportunity the court gave him to present facts bearing on its
subject matter jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, affirmance
is appropriate. Malave v. Carney Hospital, 120 F.3d 217, 222 (1st
Cir. 1999) (stating that it is a "bedrock principle" of appellate
practice that matters not raised in the district court cannot be
raised on appeal).
Affirmed.
-2-