# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10240 Summary Calendar

**Samuel M. Howard,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Office of the Special Deputy Receiver; Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company,** 

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21

- CV

- 921

Before **Higginbotham, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Ci rcuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Samuel Marcus Howard, proceeding pro se , brought claims in federal court against his former employer’s insurer and against the state receiver that

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cui**  **t R**  **ule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circu it 

### FILED June 23, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10240 Document: 00516367810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2022No. 22

- 10240

2 oversaw the insurer’s liquidation. His claims, which are difficult to decipher, 1 apparently ar o se out of the receiver’s denial of Howard’s employment

related insurance claim

. A dopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations,
the district court dismissed his case for lack of both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. H oward failed to object to the magistrate’s legal conclusions, and so we review them for plain error. See, e.g. , Longoria v. San Benito Indep. Consol. Sch. Dist. , 942 F.3d 258, 270 (5th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Plain error requires showing clear or obvious error that affected the appellant’s substantial rights and that seriously imp airs the judiciary’s fairness, integrity, or public reputation. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

We see no error, plain or otherwise, in the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Even construing Howard’s filings liberally, we agree with the district court that his complaint did not meet the threshold diversity jurisdiction requirement that the matter in controversy
“exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Although Howard’s complaint alleges no dollar amount, his responses to the magistrate’s questionnaire show that he seeks to impose a lien on undisclosed property to secure $2 6,000 , at most

. H oward’s argument that interest on that amount would today exceed the jurisdictional threshold is unavailing. See ibid. (amount must be “exclusive of interest and costs”); Regan v. Marshall , 309 F.2d 677 (1st Cir. 1962) ( interest arising by
virtue of a d elay in payment excluded from the jurisdictional amount ) ; see also

14AA **Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal**

1 The allegations in Howard’s complaint concern the receiver’s denial of his c laim for payment of an injury

- related settlement with his former employer. T he complaint identified no cause of action but only listed various statutes, none of which support any claim under the facts alleged. In our court, Howard alleges for the first time a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Case: 22-10240 Document: 00516367810 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2022No. 22

- 10240

3 **Practice & Procedure** § 3712 (4th ed. 2009 ) ( interest uniformly
excluded if incidental to the claim o r arising from a delay in payment )

. The district court therefore correctly dismissed Howard’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Russell , 972 F.2d 628, 630 (5th Cir. 1992). 2

**AFFIRMED**

.

2 Consequently, we do not reach the district court’s alternative conclusion that Howard failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the two defendants. Case: 22-10240 Document: 00516367810 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/23/2022