Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0129-01.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

Vera M. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. EAST CENTRAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, INC., Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 10-60134
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 27, 2010.
    Vera M. Walker, Newton, MS, pro se.
    Gary Erwin Friedman, Esq, Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Federal courts are limited in their authority to consider the merits of controversies or order relief from unfair conduct unless given the jurisdiction to do so by law. That law comes from Congress and prior court decisions. The district court has explained accurately by the order of January 11, 2010, 2010 WL 147803, why the Plaintiff has failed to present to the court sufficient admissible evidence to allow it to proceed with the claim that there has been a violation of federal statutes or state tort law. Plaintiff in her brief to this court points to nothing in the record to affect the district court’s judgment. Consequently, the judgment must be affirmed.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.