F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
October 4, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
TONY ALEXANDER HAMILTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 05-4050
v. (District of Utah)
(D.C. No. 03-CV-1073-DAK)
RANGER ENTERPRISES,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
On December 5, 2003, Appellant Tony Alexander Hamilton 2 filed a
complaint in federal district court, asserting the court had subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court dismissed the suit for
lack of jurisdiction, concluding Hamilton had failed to demonstrate that the
claims asserted against Defendant arose under federal law. The court further
concluded Hamilton had failed to allege diversity jurisdiction and that his
complaint failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.
1995) (holding that the requisite amount in controversy and the existence of
diversity must be affirmatively established in the pleading of the party seeking to
invoke jurisdiction).
This court reviews the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de
novo. See U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani, 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999)
Based on our review of the record, the pleadings, and the arguments asserted by
Hamilton in his appellate brief, we conclude the district court did not err when it
dismissed Hamilton’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Appellant also refers to himself in various documents as Tony-Alexander:
2
Hamilton.
-2-
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order of February 14, 2005 dismissing
Hamilton’s complaint.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-