United States Court of Appeals

for 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, Circuit 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 Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 23, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10240 Document: 00516367810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2022
No. 22-10240

2

oversaw the insurer’s liquidation. His claims, which are difficult to decipher,1

apparently arose out of the receiver’s denial of Howard’s employmentrelated insurance claim. Adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations, 

the district court dismissed his case for lack of both subject matter and 

personal jurisdiction. Howard 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 impairs 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 $26,000, at most. Howard’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 delay 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 claim 

for payment of an injury-related settlement with his former employer. The 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: 06/23/2022
No. 22-10240

3

Practice & Procedure § 3712 (4th ed. 2009) (interest uniformly 

excluded if incidental to the claim or 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