United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 24, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
No. 03-20601
Summary Calendar
_____________________
DR. ELI NASSAR,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVE ATUAHENE,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
District Court Cause No. H-03-CV-438
_________________________________________________________________
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Things
Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 126-29 (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.