Earl A. BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUTCHINSON AUTO MALL, Defendant-Appellee, 489 F. App'x 347

PER CURIAM: After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. First, Earl Bryant’s complaint against Hutchinson Auto Mall did not assert any federal claims. Thus, there was no federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, according to the complaint and its attachments, Mr. Bryant and Hutchinson Auto Mall were both citizens of Georgia, and Mr. Bryant sought only $2,400 in damages. As a result, there was no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v.

Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir.2010) (“For federal diversity jurisdiction to attach, all parties must be completely diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.” (citations omitted)). Third, Mr. Bryant has failed to address the jurisdictional issues in his brief, and they are therefore waived. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005) (‘When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.”). AFFIRMED.