Case Name: Joseph Lee BELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gregory Wayne NAWROCKI, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-25
Citations: 612 F. App'x 850
Docket Number: No. 15-1829
Parties: Joseph Lee BELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gregory Wayne NAWROCKI, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, MICHAEL S. KANNE and DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 612
Pages: 850–850

Head Matter:
Joseph Lee BELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gregory Wayne NAWROCKI, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1829.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted and Decided Aug. 25, 2015.
Joseph L. Bell, Jr., Milwaukee, WI, pro se.
Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, MICHAEL S. KANNE and DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Joseph Bell filed this action in federal court against his Milwaukee landlord and two other men. Essentially he alleges that his landlord tried to pressure him into abandoning his apartment by withholding adequate heat and hiring the other defendants — one of them a neighborhood drug dealer — to provoke a physical altercation and give the landlord a pretext to evict him. The action of the defendants, Bell claims, violated the terms of 'his lease as well as state landlord-tenant laws.
The district court screened Bell's complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir.1999), and dismissed the action after concluding that Bell does not assert any claims under federal law or allege diversity jurisdiction over his state-law claims. Bell appeals, but he does not dispute the absence of diversity jurisdiction. -And, as the district court explained, there is no federal-question jurisdiction because Bell's complaint raises only state-law claims. Thus the district court properly dismissed the case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.