
    Horace L. COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KROLL LABORATORY SPECIALISTS; Pat Pizzo, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-30144
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 6, 2007.
    Horace Cook, Denham Springs, LA, pro se.
    Keely Yoes Scott, Crawford & Lewis, Linda G. Rodrigue, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D’Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Horace L. Cook, proceeding pro se, appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing Cook’s action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, either federal question or diversity. All Defendants-Appellees have filed motions with this court seeking dismissal of Cook’s appeal as frivolous and with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. They also seek our determination that Cook’s appeal is frivolous and ask for damages pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 38.

Mindful of the latitude that we afford pro se litigants, we are nevertheless constrained to agree with Defendants-Appellees that Cook’s abject failure to address on appeal the sole basis of the district court’s dismissal of his action, viz., lack of jurisdiction, instead addressing (we think) the purported merits of his claims — which the district court obviously never reached because of its determination of lack of federal jurisdiction — makes Cook’s appeal wholly without merit and frivolous as a matter of law; wherefore

IT IS ORDERED that the appeal of Plaintiff-Appellant Horace L. Cook is DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty (20) days following the date of filing of this order, Plaintiff-Appellant file with this court a pleading not to exceed twenty (20) pages in length, showing cause, if any, why we should not award just damages or single or double costs, or both, to Defendants-Appellees for any and all damages and costs that they may have incurred as a result of Plaintiff-Appellant’s frivolous appeal. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     