SUMMARY ORDER Appellant appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and moves for a federal investigation into alleged improprieties below. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, “construing the complaint liberally and accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Local 154-9, 579 F.3d 187, 188 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Here, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no diversity among the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the case did not present a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor did the statutory provisions Appellant cited in her complaint confer jurisdiction on the district court. Moreover, as Appellant did not raise before the district court the alleged violations of the constitution and federal criminal law that she argues on appeal, the district court had no cause to construe the complaint as raising constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (explaining that courts of appeal generally will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal); Virgilio v. City of New York, 407 F.3d 105, 116 (2d Cir.2005). Appellant’s remaining arguments on appeal do not demonstrate that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the motion is DENIED.