TONY ALEXANDER HAMILTON,
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
On December 5, 2003, Appellant Tony Alexander Hamilton(2) filed a complaint in federal district court, asserting the court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Hamilton had failed to demonstrate that the claims asserted against Defendant arose under federal law. The court further concluded Hamilton had failed to allege diversity jurisdiction and that his complaint failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding that the requisite amount in controversy and the existence of diversity must be affirmatively established in the pleading of the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction).
This court reviews the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani, 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999) Based on our review of the record, the pleadings, and the arguments asserted by Hamilton in his appellate brief, we conclude the district court did not err when it dismissed Hamilton's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order of February 14, 2005 dismissing Hamilton's complaint.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
2.Appellant also refers to himself in various documents as Tony-Alexander: Hamilton.