Felix H. Olim, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Paul D. Johnson, M.d., Individually; Paul D. Johnson, M.d.,inc.; E.m. Associates, Defendants-appellees, 28 F.3d 113 (10th Cir. 1994)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff Felix H. Olim, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1). We review the court's dismissal de novo. Redmon v. United States, 934 F.2d 1151, 1155 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff's complaint contains two claims best characterized as medical malpractice and/or defamation claims.3 Because Plaintiff's claims do not arise under "the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. 1331(a), and because the parties are not diverse (Plaintiff and all Defendants are citizens of Oklahoma), 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), the district court properly dismissed this action for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Defendants refused to release his medical records to him, and Defendant Paul D. Johnson falsely diagnosed him as suffering from Alzheimer's Dementia
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
