United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 15, 2007
for the FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20265
Summary Calendar
CARTER DIBRELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
ERNEST HUBER; DELPHIA MILTON-TURNER,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(4:04-CV-4854)
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Carter Dibrell (“Dibrell”)
challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment
*
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determined that this opinion should not be published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.
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendants-
Appellees Ernest Huber and Delphia Milton-Turner
(collectively “Appellees”).
Dibrell argued at the district court that Appellees,
fellow teachers of his at McAdams Middle School in
Dickinson Independent School District, violated his
rights by: causing him to be constructively discharged
from his teaching position; intentionally inflicting
emotional distress upon him; interfering with his
business relationships; and maliciously conspiring to
institute a criminal prosecution against him.
The district court granted summary judgment in
Appellees’ favor based on Dibrell’s failure to allege any
violation of his constitutional rights. That is,
Dibrell’s claim was based on rights afforded to him by
state law, not federal law, making a § 1983 claim
improper.
Essentially for the reasons stated by the district
court in its well-reasoned opinion, we affirm. Dibrell’s
sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred
by characterizing his claim as a § 1983 claim. We
2
disagree. His complaint in one part stated: “This action
arises under Title 42[,] U.S.C. § 1983 . . . .” It in a
later part stated: “This is an action under Title 42[,]
U.S.C. § 1983 . . . .” Additionally, in response to
Appellees’ summary judgment argument that Dibrell’s claim
was barred by state law, Dibrell reemphasized that he was
alleging a federal cause of action under § 1983 that
could not be barred by state law. Therefore, Dibrell’s
argument is unpersuasive.
In addition, even if we were to accept Dibrell’s
argument that he brought suit under state law, we would
affirm for a different reason -- lack of jurisdiction. If
Dibrell, a Texas citizen and resident, brought solely a
state law claim against Appellees, who are both Texas
citizens and residents, federal jurisdiction would not
exist. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
Either way, we AFFIRM.
AFFIRMED.
3