[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
March 9, 2007
No. 06-13763 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00217-CV-WS-M
LINDA CONE SELENSKY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MOBILE INFIRMARY,
DR. JAMES BARRETT,
DR. CLAUDE BROWN,
COLEMAN AMERICAN MOVING, INC.,
GALLAGHER-BASSETT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(March 9, 2007)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Linda Cone Selensky, acting pro se, appeals the dismissal without prejudice
of her civil action against Mobile Infirmary, a group of doctors, Coleman
American Moving, Inc., and an entity called Gallagher-Bassett, for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
In order for a federal district court to have jurisdiction over a claim, a
plaintiff must show, on the face of the complaint, either complete diversity of
citizenship or that a “substantial” issue of federal law is raised by the claim. See
Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc., 381 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted). Because Selensky’s claims were based on allegations of
tortious and fraudulent conduct by private actors within her state of residence, and
because she did not plead facts sufficient to demonstrate complete diversity of
citizenship among the parties or to state a claim involving a substantial question of
federal law, the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2