Paradise Village Children's Home, Inc. v. Liggins , 102 F. App'x 885 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT July 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-31155
Summary Calendar
PARADISE VILLAGE CHILDREN’S HOME, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ELDER LIGGINS; ZEONIA LIGGINS; CHARLES BRADFORD; HENRY LIGGINS;
LILLIAN OVERTON; BELINDA BONNETT; WALTER KEY, JR.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(03-CV-1060)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants appeal, pro se, the dismissal of this action, which
they had removed from Louisiana state court to the district court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446. (The action had been removed and
remanded previously.) The district court ruled that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction, denied their motion for removal, and
dismissed the case.
Appellee contends that this court lacks jurisdiction, claiming
that the district court remanded for lack of jurisdiction. See 28
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
U.S.C. § 1447(d). The record, however, does not indicate that the
district court remanded the case. When there is no remand, 28
U.S.C. “§ 1447(d) does not preclude this Court’s appellate
jurisdiction.” In re Bissonnet Investments LLC, 320 F.3d 520, 525
(5th Cir. 2003).
A dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
reviewed de novo. Peoples Nat’l Bank v. Office of the Comptroller
of Currency of the United States, 362 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir.
2004). Appellants do not contest the district court’s ruling that
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Although pro se briefs are
afforded liberal construction, pro se litigants must brief
contentions in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
This appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Appellants are warned that
filing frivolous appeals in the future could subject them to
sanctions.
Appellee’s request for costs and damages under FED. R. APP. P.
39 is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED;
REQUEST FOR COSTS AND DAMAGES DENIED
2