Case Name: David Donald DU VALL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOWES COMPANIES INC., a corporation; Robert A. Niblock, CEO, Chairman; Dennis R. Knowles, Store Operation, South Central; Jeff Dix, manager, Shoal Creek Warehouse; John Doe I, assistant manager; Chris Doe II, subordinate employee; Gary Hicks, manager, Ranch Road Warehouse; John Doe III, senior employee, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-16
Citations: 278 F. App'x 399
Docket Number: No. 07-51405
Parties: David Donald DU VALL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOWES COMPANIES INC., a corporation; Robert A. Niblock, CEO, Chairman; Dennis R. Knowles, Store Operation, South Central; Jeff Dix, manager, Shoal Creek Warehouse; John Doe I, assistant manager; Chris Doe II, subordinate employee; Gary Hicks, manager, Ranch Road Warehouse; John Doe III, senior employee, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 278
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
David Donald DU VALL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOWES COMPANIES INC., a corporation; Robert A. Niblock, CEO, Chairman; Dennis R. Knowles, Store Operation, South Central; Jeff Dix, manager, Shoal Creek Warehouse; John Doe I, assistant manager; Chris Doe II, subordinate employee; Gary Hicks, manager, Ranch Road Warehouse; John Doe III, senior employee, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-51405
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 16, 2008.
David D. Du Vail, Austin, TX, pro se.
Shannon Brown Sehmoyer, Christine Elaine Reinhard, Sehmoyer Reinhard, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Lowes Companies Inc., a Corporation.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
For the reasons stated in the district court's order, we affirm the judgment that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Lowe's Companies, Inc. With respect to the argument that the district court should have granted Plaintiff an opportunity for discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, we deem that argument waived because Plaintiff never requested any such relief before the district court. See Tex. Commercial Energy v. TXU Energy, Inc., 413 F.3d 503, 510 (5th Cir.2005) (recognizing that arguments not raised before the district court are waived on appeal). Finally, with respect to the district court's orders dismissing the remaining defendants, we do not have appellate jurisdiction to review those orders because they were not included in the notice of appeal and, indeed, were issued after Plaintiff filed the instant notice of appeal. See Pope v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 937 F.2d 258, 266 (5th Cir.1991).
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.