NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______________
No. 12-3797
______________
ALLEN L. FEINGOLD,
Appellant
v.
MARIA TESONE; MICHAEL MCGUIRE;
BUCKLEY, MCGUIRE, MORRIS & SOMMER;
LEWIS SHARPS; RSZ ORTHAPEDICS; ERIE INS CO
_______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(No. 2-12-cv-04695)
District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker
______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 9, 2013
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, FUENTES and CHAGARES,
Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: December 17, 2013)
______________
OPINION
______________
1
MCKEE, Chief Judge
Allen Feingold appeals the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of his action
against the Appellees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012). We will affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court.1
Since we write primarily for the parties, We need not set forth the underlying facts
or procedural history of this case.
The District Court granted Feingold’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
because he satisfied the requirements of § 1915. Feingold v. Tesone, No. 12-4695, 2012
WL 3956662, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2012), but the court then dismissed Feingold’s
action pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because he lacked standing. Id. at *2-3. In sum, the
District Court held that Pennsylvania law does not recognize the assignment of
unliquidated tort claims, such as those brought by Feingold for the Whitsons’s injuries.
Id. at *3.
In its Memorandum Opinion, the District Court carefully and thoroughly
explained its reasons for holding that unliquidated tort claims are not assignable under
1
The District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case was premised upon
complete diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The District Court questioned whether it had
subject matter jurisdiction because it determined that Feingold lacked standing, see infra,
but did not reach the issue given its dismissal on standing grounds. Feingold v. Tesone,
Civ. No. 12-4695, 2012 WL 3956662, at *3 n.5 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2012) (citing Sinochem
Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007)). Because we affirm
substantially for the reasons expressed by the District Court and therefore do not reach
the merits of the case, “we need not decide whether we lack subject matter jurisdiction.”
Gonzalez-Cifuentes v. I.N.S., 253 F. App'x 173, 175 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Sinochem,
549 U.S. at 431).
2
Pennsylvania law. The District Court’s well-reasoned analysis adequately and accurately
construed Pennsylvania law, and Appellants’ appeal from that decision is frivolous.
Accordingly, we will affirm the Order of the District Court dismissing Feingold’s
action substantially for the reasons set forth in its Memorandum Opinion.
3