J . Gar van Murtha, Senior

District Judg e of theUnited States District Court for the 1 District of Ve rmont, sitti ngby designation. The De fenda

nt-Appelleedid not file a notice of appea ranc e bef ore e ither the district 2 c ourt or thi s Co ur t. 08 -61 65 -cv Je nkins v . Mur

phy 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS

FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R

RUL I NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL EF FE CT . CI T AT I ON TO S UM M ARY ORDE RS FI L E D AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GO VE RNE D BY T HI S COURT ’ S L OCAL RUL E 3 2 . 1 AND FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A BR I EF O R O TH ER PA PER I N W H I C H A LI TI GA N T CI TES A SU M M A R Y O R D ER , I N EA C H PA R A G R A PH I N W H I C H A C I TA TI O N APPEARS , AT L EAS T ON E C I TA TI O N M U ST E IT H E R B E T O T H E F E D E R A L A P P E N D IX O R B E A C C O M P A N IE D B Y T H E N O T A T IO N : “ (S U M M A R Y O R D E R ).” A PAR TY C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F TH A T S U M M A R Y O R D ER TO GETH ER W I TH TH E PAP ER I N W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I T E D O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL U N LESS TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S A V A I LAB LE I N AN ELECTR O N I C DA TAB A SE W H I C H I S PU B LI C LY ACCE S S I B L E WI T HOU T P A Y M E N T OF F E E ( S U C H A S T H E D A T A B A S E A V A I L A B L E AT HT T P : / / W W W . C A 2 . U S C OU R T S . G OV / ) . I F N O C OP Y I S S E R V E D B Y R E A S ON OF T HE A V A I L A B I L I T Y OF T HE OR D E R ON S U C H A D A T A B A S E , T HE CI T A T I ON M U S T I N C L U D E RE F E R E N C E T O T HA T DA T A B A S E A N D T HE DOCK E T NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D.

A t a sta ted ter m o f the U n it ed S tate s C o u rt o f A p p ea ls f o r th e S ec o n d C ircu it , h e ld a t th e D a n iel P a tr ick M o y n ih a n U n ite d S ta te s C o u r th o u se , 5 0 0 P e a r l S tr e e t, in t he C i t y of

N ew Y ork, on t he 15 day of D ece m ber, t w o t housand n i ne. th PRES ENT: P IE RRE N
. LE VA L,

P E T E R W
. H A LL, Circuit Judge s, J . GARVAN MURTHA , 1 District Judge
.

__________________________________________ Sylvi a Jenkins , Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 08-6165-c v M i c h a e l M ur

p hy, 2 Defendant-

Appellee
.

__________________________________________2

FOR APPELLANT: Sylvia J enkins, pro s e , Sy rac use, NY. Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of New Y ork (Mc Curn, J. ; L owe, M.J. ). UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AND DECREED that th e c a seis DI SM ISSED for lac k of jurisdiction. Appellant Sylvia J enkins, pro s e , a pp e a ls thedis tric t c ourt ’s su a s po ntedismiss al of he r 42 U. S.C. § 1 98 3 c omp la int fo r f a ilureto s tate a

c la im. We a ssume thepa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th theun de rl yingfa c ts, theproc e dural hi sto ry of thec a se , a

nd theiss ue s o n a

pp e a l. We dism iss Jenkins ’s a

pp e a l f or wa nt o f s ub je c t- matte r j urisdic tio n. “ ‘It is a fu nd ame ntal pre c ept t

hat f e de ral c ourt s a

rec ourt s o f l imi te d ju

ri sd ic tio n’ and

la c k th e po we r t o disreg ard suc h limit s as havebeen imposed by the Constitut ion or Congress.” Du ra nt, Nic ho ls, Houston, Hodgson, &Cortese-Costa, P.C. v. Dupont , 565 F.3d 56, 62 ( 2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Owen Equip. &Erection Co. v. Kroger , 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978)). Jenkins’s complaint
su g g e sts no ba sis fo r f

e de ral qu e sti on

jurisdic tio n, a s th e de fe nd ant i s a private pa

rt y and the reis no alleg ation that he wa s actingunder thecolor of state law. Tancredi v. Me tro. Li fe Ins. Co. , 316 F.3d 308, 312 ( 2d Cir. 2003) (“Aplaintiff pre ssing a claim of violation of his constitutional ri ghts un de r § 19 83 is .
. . re qu ir e d to sh owstate a c tio n. ” ); Carlos v. Santos , 123 F.3d 61, 65 ( 2d Cir. 1997) (“[T]he defe ndant in a § 1983 ac tion [ must] have e x erc ised power possessed by

virtue of statelaw a

nd ma depo ssibleon ly

be c a us e thewron g do e r i s c lot he d w iththea

uth ority of state law. ” ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) . N or

ha s Jenkin s p le d a

ny ba sis fo r t

his Court to exercise diver sity

jurisdiction in thi s matter. More over, de spite permission from the district cour t3

to file an amended c omplaint clarify ing that court’s ba sis for exercisingsubject-matter jurisdic tio n, Jenkins faile d to fi lea c omp la int

or oth e rw isere sp on d to thec ourt ’s ins tr uc tio ns . We conclude that this C ourt lacks subjec t-matter jurisdiction over this case, a

nd it is thus DI SM ISSED
. FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk By :__________________________