Allen L. FEINGOLD, Appellant v. Maria TESONE; Michael McGuire; Buckley, McGuire, Morris & Sommer; Lewis Sharps; RSZ Orthapedics; Erie Ins Co., 548 F. App'x 39

OPINION McKEE, Chief Judge. Allen Feingold appeals the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of his action against the Appellees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012). We will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court. Since we write primarily for the parties, We need not set forth the underlying facts or procedural history of this case. The District Court granted Feingold’s motion to proceed in forma pauper is because he satisfied the requirements of § 1915. Feingold v. Tesone, No. 12-4695, 2012 WL 3956662, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 7, 2012), but the court then dismissed Feingold’s action pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(

i) because he lacked standing. Id. at *2-3. In sum, the District Court held that Pennsylvania law does not recognize the assignment of unliquidated tort claims, such as those brought by Feingold for the Whitsons’s injuries. Id. at *3. In its Memorandum Opinion, the District Court carefully and thoroughly explained its reasons for holding that unliqui-dated tort claims are not assignable under Pennsylvania law. The District Court’s well-reasoned analysis adequately and accurately construed Pennsylvania law, and Appellants’ appeal from that decision is frivolous.

Accordingly, we will affirm the Order of the District Court dismissing Feingold’s action substantially for the reasons set forth in its Memorandum Opinion. . The District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case was premised upon complete diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The District Court questioned whether it had subject matter jurisdiction because it determined that Feingold lacked standing, see infra, but did not reach the issue given its dismissal on standing grounds. Feingold v. Tesone, Civ. No. 12-4695, 2012 WL 3956662, at *3 n. 5 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 7, 2012) (citing Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay.

Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007)). Because we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the District Court and therefore do not reach the merits of the case, "we need not decide whether we lack subject matter jurisdiction.” Gonzalez-Cifuentes v. I.N.S., 253 F. App’x 173, 175 n. 2 (3d Cir.2007) (citing Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 431).