Anchor Paving Co v. Metro Transt Auth ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20824
Summary Calendar
ANCHOR PAVING COMPANY,
doing business as Anchor, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY
OF HARRIS COUNTY ET AL.,
Defendants,
MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION CO.; W. KYLE GOOCH,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-97-CV-2197)
- - - - - - - - - -
July 6, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Anchor Paving Company appeals the district
court’s denial of its motion to remand following the removal of
this action from state court.
Anchor Paving first argues that the district court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction because no federal question existed.
The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S.
Ct. 1003, 1010 (1998); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 685 (1946).
Anchor Paving also asserts that this matter was improperly
removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). Anchor Paving
did not raise this issue before the district court; we will
therefore not consider the issue because it is waived. In re Shell
Oil Co., 932 F.2d 1519, 1523 (5th Cir. 1991).
Anchor Paving argues that the district court abused its
discretion by not remanding its state-law claims to state court
after it granted summary judgment on the federal claim. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Cinel v.
Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994); Metropolitan Wholesale
Supply, Inc. v. M/V ROYAL RAINBOW, 12 F.3d 58, 61 (5th Cir. 1994);
Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 954 F.2d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 1992). The
judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2