and delayed completion of his program at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Second, as O’Connell explained in his June 21, 2011 letter to the NJTA, the "new job title” in O’Connell’s LinkedIn profile was "merely a vacant position at the school at which to ‘park’ [O'Connell]” until he recuperated from surgery. (App. 361.) 6 . Additionally, we conclude that the District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because O'Connell’s initial and Amended Complaint do not raise a federal question. The references to federal law are limited to citations in support of O’Connell’s assertion that he was in the military and one stray reference to the United States Constitution, See Goepel v. Nat’l Postal Mail Handlers Union, 36 F.3d 306, 310 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United Jersey Banks v. Parell, 783 F.2d 360,
holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court recognizing that every theory of relief must raise federal issue for claim to arise under federal law holding that merely alluding to federal law does not raise a federal question holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction