Brooks v. Shope , 430 F. App'x 220 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1763
DARRELL BROOKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LLOYD LAYMAN SHOPE; ENTERPRISE CAR RENTAL; FORD MOTOR
COMPANY; FORD AIR BAG MANUFACTURER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00334-FDW-DSC)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Fred Fincher Jarrell, K&L
GATES LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Robert A. Hartsoe, HARTSOE
& ASSOCIATES, PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Kirk Gibson
Warner, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN,
LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Brooks appeals the district court’s orders
granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss Brooks’s civil
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his
motion to alter or amend judgment. On appeal, Brooks contends
that the district court erroneously found him to be a citizen of
North Carolina and thus found complete diversity of citizenship
to be lacking. We affirm.
“If the district court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). When a defendant challenges
the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, “the
plaintiff bears the burden of proving the truth of such facts by
a preponderance of the evidence.” United States ex. rel.
Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009). Unless
the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central
to the dispute, the district court may “resolve the
jurisdictional facts in dispute by considering evidence outside
the pleadings, such as affidavits.” Id. at 348.
“Citizenship, like the other ingredients or elements
of diversity jurisdiction . . . presents a preliminary question
of fact to be determined by the trial court.” Sligh v. Doe, 596
F.2d 1169, 1171 (4th Cir. 1979). “We review a district court’s
2
jurisdictional findings of fact on any issues that are not
intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the
plaintiff’s claims under the clearly erroneous standard and any
legal conclusions flowing therefrom de novo.” Vuyyuru, 555 F.3d
at 348.
Mindful of these standards, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Brooks failed to carry his
burden of demonstrating the district court’s jurisdiction over
the matter. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3