Filed: Oct. 25, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT October 25, 2006 No. 06-13620 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 06-00640-CV-GET-1 MORETON ROLLESTON, JR., MORETON ROLLESTON, JR. LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus TYLER PERRY, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (October 25, 2006) Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, C
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT October 25, 2006 No. 06-13620 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 06-00640-CV-GET-1 MORETON ROLLESTON, JR., MORETON ROLLESTON, JR. LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus TYLER PERRY, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (October 25, 2006) Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Ci..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
October 25, 2006
No. 06-13620 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00640-CV-GET-1
MORETON ROLLESTON, JR.,
MORETON ROLLESTON, JR. LIVING TRUST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
TYLER PERRY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 25, 2006)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Moreton Rolleston, Jr., an attorney proceeding pro se, and a living trust in
Rolleston’s name (“Rolleston”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their private
civil action against Tyler Perry. Rolleston claimed that he was unlawfully evicted
from his land because it was sold by Rolleston’s judgment creditor to Perry when
the creditor lacked good title. The district court granted Perry’s motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding diversity jurisdiction lacking under
28 U.S.C. § 1332 . The district court dismissed as moot Rollestons’ motions to
recuse and for injunctive relief. Rolleston now appeals and argue the merits of his
claim.
We review the district court’s determination of subject matter jurisdiction de
novo. Williams v. Best Buy Co.,
269 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2001). Litigants
who fail to raise issues on appeal have abandoned those issues. Allstate Ins. Co. v.
Swann,
27 F.3d 1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1994). However, briefs should be liberally
read to ascertain the issues raised.
Id.
Diversity jurisdiction exists where the suit is between citizens of different
states and the amount in controversy exceeds the statutorily prescribed amount. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, no evidence was brought forth to dispute that both parties
are citizens of Georgia. Moreover, Rolleston has not argued on appeal that subject
matter jurisdiction exists, but instead argues the merits of his claim. Therefore, we
affirm the district court’s order.
AFFIRMED .
2