*1 Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
On appeal Plaintiff James Heath complains that the district court erred in dismissing his claims under the ADA and FMLA for want of jurisdiction because language in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett [1] suggests that, pursuant to Ex *2 parte Young , [2] the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit him from seeking prospective injunctive relief against Johnson, the assertedly responsible state official. Heath did not contend in response to Johnson’s motion to dismiss that he was seeking injunctive relief so neither Garrett nor Ex parte Young was ever considered by the district court. Because Heath did not present this argument to the district court, we AFFIRM the dismissal and do not address whether Garrett and Ex parte Young apply in this case.
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
[1] 531 U.S. 356, 374 n.9 (2001).
[2] 209 U.S. 123 (1908). -2-