Case Name: Dr. Eli NASSAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve ATUAHENE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-24
Citations: 85 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 03-20601
Parties: Dr. Eli NASSAR, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steve ATUAHENE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 369–370

Head Matter:
Dr. Eli NASSAR, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steve ATUAHENE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-20601
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 24, 2003.
William A. Petersen, Jr., Livingston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steve Atuahene, pro se, Philadelphia, PA, Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
On May 30, 2003, the district court remanded the case underlying this appeal to state court. In its order, the district court explained why it did not have subject matter over the case. In response, the defendant-appellant filed a notice of appeal to challenge the remand order. This Court, however, has no jurisdiction to review an order remanding a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 126-29, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995).
Even if the Court had jurisdiction, the district court properly remanded the case because the plaintiff-appellee's complaint alleges an amount in controversy less than the jurisdictional requirement for a diversity case. Contrary to the complaints in the defendant-appellant's brief, the district court applied the proper legal standards in considering the plaintiff-appellee's motion to remand, and the district court provided the defendant-appellant with ample opportunity to respond to the motion to remand-notably, the thirty days the defendant-appellant requested. The district court recognized that it did not have jurisdiction for any of the reasons set forth in the defendant-appellant's notice of removal. Like the district court, this Court has no jurisdiction over this case. Consequently, this Court DISMISSES the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.