Joseph L. Bell, Jr. v. Gregory W. Nawrocki, et al

Filing

Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge; Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. [6687580-1] [6687580] [15-1829]

Case: 15-1829

Document: 18
Filed: 08/25/2015
Pages: 2
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 25, 2015 *
Decided August 25, 2015
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 15-1829
JOSEPH LEE BELL, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

v.

No. 15-cv-249-pp

GREGORY WAYNE NAWROCKI, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Pamela Pepper,
Judge.

ORDER
Joseph Bell filed this action in federal court against his Milwaukee landlord and
two other men. Essentially he alleges that his landlord tried to pressure him into
abandoning his apartment by withholding adequate heat and hiring the other
defendants—one of them a neighborhood drug dealer—to provoke a physical

The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we
have concluded that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See FED. R. APP.
P. 34(a)(2).
*

Case: 15-1829
No. 15-1829

Document: 18

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pages: 2
Page 2

altercation and give the landlord a pretext to evict him. The action of the defendants, Bell
claims, violated the terms of his lease as well as state landlord-tenant laws.
The district court screened Bell’s complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Rowe v.
Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999), and dismissed the action after concluding that
Bell does not assert any claims under federal law or allege diversity jurisdiction over his
state-law claims. Bell appeals, but he does not dispute the absence of diversity
jurisdiction. And, as the district court explained, there is no federal-question jurisdiction
because Bell’s complaint raises only state-law claims. Thus the district court properly
dismissed the case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.