Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0859-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reginald ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-2099
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 11, 2017
    Filed: October 17, 2017
    Reginald Robinson, Pro Se
    Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Reginald Robinson appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se complaint. He also moves to supplement the' record on appeal.

Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Robinson’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Laclede Gas Co. v. St Charles Cnty., Mo., 713 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Robinson did not assert a valid basis for federal question jurisdiction because he relied on federal criminal statutes only, and because the complaint revealed a lack of diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (requirements for federal question jurisdiction); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in prosecution of another); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (requirements for diversity jurisdiction); Ryan v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001) (discussing diversity of citizenship). We also conclude that the material proffered with Robinson’s motion to supplement the record would not have affected the oui> come.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Robinson’s motion to supplement the record is denied as moot. 
      
      . The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.