Moreton Rolleston, Jr. v. Tyler Perry, No. 06-13620 (11th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 06-13620 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT October 25, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN 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