Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-21020/USCOURTS-ca5-03-21020-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-21020

Conference Calendar

 

KENNARD LAZENBY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LEXUS OF CLEAR LAKE,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-1917

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kennard Lazenby appeals the district court’s dismissal of

his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Our review

is de novo. See Robinson v. TCI/US West Communications Inc.,

117 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 1997).

Lazenby argues that the district court erred in dismissing

his action. He cites to numerous federal provisions and asserts,

with minimal argument, that subject matter jurisdiction exists

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

 Case: 03-21020 Document: 0051189698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 03-21020

-2-

After reviewing the briefs and Lazenby’s amended complaint,

we have determined that the provisions cited by Lazenby do not

supply subject matter jurisdiction because each is “clearly

immaterial and is invoked solely for the purpose of obtaining

jurisdiction.” Holland/Blue Streak v. Barthelemy, 849 F.2d 987,

989 (5th Cir. 1988). Jurisdiction is also lacking because

claims under the provisions cited by Lazenby would be “wholly

insubstantial and frivolous.” Id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-21020 Document: 0051189698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004