United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 2, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
No. 03-20179
Summary Calendar
JAMES D ROBISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HOUSTON HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-02-CV-1950)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Robison appeals dismissal of his medical malpractice and
false imprisonment claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
We affirm.
The district court did not err in finding that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over Robison’s claims. Federal courts
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
are courts of limited jurisdiction and, absent jurisdiction
conferred by statute or the Constitution, lack the power to
adjudicate claims.1 Federal courts have subject matter
jurisdiction only where a question of federal law is involved or
where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.2 The burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction rests on Robison.3 Robison’s complaint
asserts several causes of action, none of which rest on questions
of federal law. Likewise, there is no diversity of citizenship.
Therefore, because neither a federal question or diversity of
citizenship exists, the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over this cause of action and it was properly
dismissed.
1
See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
377 (1994).
2
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
3
See Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.
2001).
2