Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marcus BLALOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-10713
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 5, 2006.
    Marcus Blalock, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Marcus Blalock filed a civil complaint naming State Farm Insurance Company and Dorothy Smith as defendants, alleging that he was involved in an automobile accident with Smith who was insured by State Farm. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The district court determined that diversity of citizenship between the parties did not exist and that a United States Government plaintiff was not a party to the action, despite Blalock’s contrary indication when he filed his complaint. Blalock has abandoned his appeal with respect to these determinations by failing to challenge them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Blalock argues that the district court had jurisdiction because State Farm’s denial of his personal injury claims violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). No indication of any ADA claim “affirmatively appear[ed]” on the face of Blalock’s complaint. Margin v. Sea-Land, Servs., Inc., 812 F.2d 973, 976 (5th Cir.1987). Thus the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332; Nauru Phosphate Royalties, Inc. v. Drago Daic Interests, Inc., 138 F.3d 160,163 n. 1 (5th Cir.1998); Margin, 812 F.2d at 976.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Blalock’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.