Skinner v. Hardy

Second Circuit

Skinner v. Hardy

114 F. App'x 41

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 2004

DocketNo. 04-0116

StatusPublished

This text of 114 F. App'x 41 (Skinner v. Hardy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Skinner v. Hardy, 114 F. App'x 41 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

REVISED SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Rodney Steven Skinner, proceeding pro se, appeals from the November 6, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Michael B. Mukasey, Chief Judge) dismissing the ease for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On an appeal from a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Luckett v. Bure, 290 F.3d 493, 496 (2d Cir.2002). Familiarity with the proceedings before the district court is assumed.

On appeal, Skinner reiterates his allegations of malpractice and breach of contract against the defendants, but he does not contest the district court’s findings that complete diversity was lacking and that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000.

For substantially the same reasons identified in the district court’s November 6, 2003 order, we affirm. See Skinner v. Pettus, No. 02 Civ. 0752 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2003). Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

REVISED SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Rodney Steven Skinner, proceeding pro se, appeals from the November 6, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Michael B. Mukasey, Chief Judge) dismissing the ease for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On an appeal from a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Luckett v. Bure, 290 F.3d 493, 496 (2d Cir.2002). Familiarity with the proceedings before the district court is assumed.

On appeal, Skinner reiterates his allegations of malpractice and breach of contract against the defendants, but he does not contest the district court’s findings that complete diversity was lacking and that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000.

For substantially the same reasons identified in the district court’s November 6, 2003 order, we affirm. See Skinner v. Pettus, No. 02 Civ. 0752 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2003). Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 F. App'x 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-hardy-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack