Case Name: Paula FESENMEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI; Taliaferro & Browne; Pars Engineering, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-20
Citations: 683 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 16-2997
Parties: Paula FESENMEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI; Taliaferro & Browne; Pars Engineering, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
Paula FESENMEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI; Taliaferro & Browne; Pars Engineering, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-2997
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2017
Filed: April 20, 2017
Paula Fesenmeyer, Pro Se
Katherine A. Chandler, Saskia Jacobse, Dustin Eli Johnson, City Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee City of Kansas City
Charnissa Holliday-Scott, James W. Tip-pin, James W. Tippin & Associates, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee Tal-iaferro & Browne
Jeffrey Douglas Zimmerman, Shawnee Mission, KS, for Defendant-Appellee PARS Engineering, Inc.
Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this removed action in which Paula Fesenmeyer asserted claims under Missouri law and The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. She appeals after the district court, inter alia, denied her motion to remand the case back to state court, dismissed her federal claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.
As an initial matter, we conclude that the only issue to be considered on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Fesenmeyer's motion to remand the case back to the state court. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that points not meaningfully argued on appeal are waived). We further conclude that the motion to remand was appropriately denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (granting district courts original jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States"), 1441(A) (allowing defendant to remove action pending in state court to federal district court that has original jurisdiction over action), 1446 (describing procedure for removal of civil actions); In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2010) (applying de novo review to denial of remand). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.