*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.

R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 17 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

CHINAGOROM NONYELUM

GODWIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 97-2300

GARY JOEL HILL,

Defendant-Appellee.

(D.C. No. CIV-97-903-SC)

(D. N.M.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**

 

Plaintiff Chinagorom Nonyelum Godwin, appearing pro se, appeals the district 
1

 Although the district court stated that it was reviewing the complaint under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we

assume that in light of the district court’s order dismissing the complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, the district court intended to state that it reviewed the

complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

2

 Section 1332 provides: “The district court shall have original jurisdiction of all

civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and

is between (1) citizens of different states; [or] (2) citizens of a State and citizens or

subjects of a foreign state . . .” 

2

court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1

 Plaintiff argues

that the district court erred in concluding that the complaint did not meet the $75,000

amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.2 Our jurisdiction arises under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Painter v. Shalala, 97 F.3d 1351, 1355 (10th Cir. 1996). Applying this standard, we

affirm.

On July 7, 1997, Plaintiff filed a complaint in district court alleging that Defendant

Gary Joel Hill, an attorney retained by Plaintiff in criminal and immigration matters,

failed to perform the services agreed to and refused to refund the $7,000 retainer paid to

him by Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought recovery of the $7,000 retainer. The district court, sua

sponte, reviewed its subject matter jurisdiction and concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint

alleged state law tort or contract claims which did not exceed $75,000. Consequently,

because Plaintiff did not meet the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a), the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. 
3

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, pleadings, and the entire record before us. 

We agree with the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its order

dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge