Case ID: f-appx_114/html/0041-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rodney Steven SKINNER, Evelyn Taylor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael A. HARDY, Scott Brettschneider, Robert Didio, Marvin K. Pettus, Lynne F. Stewart, Abigail Everett, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-0116.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 1, 2004.
    Rodney Steven Skinner, Napanoch, NY, for Appellant, pro se.
    
      Present: WALKER, Chief Judge, POOLER, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       In a letter dated August 19, 2004, defendantappellee Abigail Everett, a supervising attorney at the Center for Appellate Litigation, indicated to the Clerk of this Court that neither she nor the Center for Appellate Litigation had any record of receiving the complaint or legal papers related to this case. She also noted that plaintiff’s claims "have no merit.”
    
    
      
       Because The Honorable Richard C. Wesley, originally a member of the panel, recused himself from consideration of the appeal, this case was decided by a two-judge panel. See Murray v. NBC, 35 F.3d 45 (2d Cir.1994); 2d Cir. R. 0.14(b).
    
   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.