James Hull v. Daniel Mohs

223 F. App'x 517

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

James Hull appeals following the district court’s 1 grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss his diversity action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon our careful review of the record, see Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir.1990) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that it appears to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy in Hull’s action does not exceed $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where matter in controversy exceeds sum or value of $75,000); Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 959 (8th Cir.2000) (district court must dismiss action if it appears to legal certainty that value of claim is less than $75,000).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Hull’s motion to supplement the record.

1 . The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).