Kennard Lazenby appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Our review is de novo. See Robinson v. TCI/US West Communications Inc., 117 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 1997).

Lazenby argues that the district court erred in dismissing his action. He cites to numerous federal provisions and asserts, with minimal argument, that subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

*559 After reviewing the briefs and Lazenby’s amended complaint, we have determined that the provisions cited by Lazenby do not supply subject matter jurisdiction because each is “clearly immaterial and is invoked solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.” Holland/Blue Streak v. Barthelemy, 849 F.2d 987, 989 (5th Cir. 1988). Jurisdiction is also lacking because claims under the provisions cited by Lazenby would be “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.