
    James D ROBISON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HOUSTON HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-20179.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 2, 2003.
    James Robison, Pro se, Pasadena, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Megan M. Hare, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM

James Robison appeals dismissal of his medical malpractice and false imprisonment claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

The district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Robison’s claims. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, absent jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, lack the power to adjudicate claims. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only where a question of federal law is involved or where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on Robison. Robison’s complaint asserts several causes of action, none of which rest on questions of federal law. Likewise, there is no diversity of citizenship. Therefore, because neither a federal question or diversity of citizenship exists, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action and it was properly dismissed. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).
     
      
      . See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
     
      
      . See Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001).
     