Lazenby v. Lexus of Clear Lake , 95 F. App'x 558 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-21020
Conference Calendar
KENNARD LAZENBY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEXUS OF CLEAR LAKE,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-03-CV-1917
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kennard Lazenby appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Our review
is de novo. See Robinson v. TCI/US West Communications Inc.,
117 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 1997).
Lazenby argues that the district court erred in dismissing
his action. He cites to numerous federal provisions and asserts,
with minimal argument, that subject matter jurisdiction exists
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-21020
-2-
After reviewing the briefs and Lazenby’s amended complaint,
we have determined that the provisions cited by Lazenby do not
supply subject matter jurisdiction because each is “clearly
immaterial and is invoked solely for the purpose of obtaining
jurisdiction.” Holland/Blue Streak v. Barthelemy, 849 F.2d 987,
989 (5th Cir. 1988). Jurisdiction is also lacking because
claims under the provisions cited by Lazenby would be “wholly
insubstantial and frivolous.” Id.The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.