Brackens v. Brackens

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 15, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30756
Summary Calendar
_____________________
STACEY W. BRACKENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LILLIA MAY LEWIS BRACKENS,
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:05-CV-1079
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stacey W. Brackens (“Stacey”) filed suit against his
stepmother, Lillia May Lewis Brackens (“Lillia”), alleging that she
had conspired with her lawyer to fraudulently deprive him of his
inheritance from his father’s estate and that in so doing, she had
discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The district court found that Stacey
had raised no genuine issue of material fact as to the ADA claim,
and granted summary judgment in favor of Lillia. The district
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
court dismissed Stacey’s remaining claims without prejudice,
finding that diversity jurisdiction was lacking as to those claims,
and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
On appeal, Stacey again raises the ADA as a basis for this
court’s jurisdiction, but fails to discuss this claim in his brief
on appeal. This claim is therefore waived. See Braud v. Transp.
Serv. Co. of Ill., 445 F.3d 801, 809 n. 17 (5th Cir. 2006); United
Paperworkers Int’l Union AFL-CIO, CLC v. Champion Int’l Corp., 908
F.2d 1252, 1255 (5th Cir. 1990).
Stacey also argues that the district court erred in dismissing
the remainder of his claims based on diversity of citizenship for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.** Section 1332(a) provides,
in relevant part, that “[t]he district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs ....” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In his complaint, Stacey
requested $300,000 in property and monies owed, and $250,000 in
punitive damages. After reviewing the terms of Stacey’s father’s
will, the district court determined that the net value of the
estate was $55,722.29, a valuation supported by two appraisals of
the disputed property. This valuation was not contested by Stacey,
who provided no evidence in opposing Lillia’s Motion for Summary
Judgment to support his contention that he is owed $300,000 from
**
The complete diversity of the parties was not disputed.
2
his father’s estate. The district court thus concluded that
Stacey’s share of the estate could not, under any conditions, meet
the required jurisdictional amount. After careful review of the
record, we agree.
The thorough and well-reasoned judgment of the district court
is therefore
AFFIRMED.
3