Filed: Jul. 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 10-2146 _ Curtis L. Northington, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Saint Louis County Government, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 15, 2010 Filed: July 6, 2010 _ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges _ PER CURIAM Curtis Northington, Jr. appeals the district court’s1 dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Northington file
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 10-2146 _ Curtis L. Northington, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Saint Louis County Government, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 15, 2010 Filed: July 6, 2010 _ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges _ PER CURIAM Curtis Northington, Jr. appeals the district court’s1 dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Northington filed..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-2146
___________
Curtis L. Northington, Jr., *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Saint Louis County Government, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: June 15, 2010
Filed: July 6, 2010
___________
Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
___________
PER CURIAM
Curtis Northington, Jr. appeals the district court’s1 dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Northington filed a complaint against the Saint Louis County
Government for breach of contract. Northington claims he entered into a contract
with the Saint Louis County Government fifteen years ago for $3. According to
Northington, the face value of this contract is now $25,000, and he is seeking damages
in that amount.
1
The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
The district court properly dismissed the cause of action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The complaint does not raise a federal question claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does the cause of action meet the diversity requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 1332, as both parties are residents of Missouri and the amount in controversy
does not exceed $75,000.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-