Patel v. Canales, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10108
Summary Calendar
KAMAL K. PATEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOEL CANALES; BLAS CANALES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of
USDC No. 3:99-CV-1422-D
--------------------
November 3, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kamal K. Patel, federal prisoner # 56496-080, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction. He argues
that the court erred in determining that the amount in
controversy fell short of the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum set
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). We review the district court’s
dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) de novo. See Rodriguez v.
Texas Comm’n on the Arts, 199 F.3d 279, 280 (5th Cir. 2000).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-10108
-2-
The amount in controversy generally is decided from the
complaint itself unless it appears, or is in some way shown, that
the amount stated in the complaint is not claimed in good faith.
National Union Fire Ins. v. Russell, 972 F.2d 628, 630 (5th Cir.
1992). Assuming, arguendo, that the settlement contract was
breached, Patel could have sought to vacate the dismissal of his
original complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and to
reinstate the case. See Stipelcovich v. Sand Dollar Marine,
Inc., 805 F.2d 599, 605 (5th Cir. 1986). Patel did not do so;
therefore, his only remaining option was to bring an action to
collect the settlement amount. Id. Because the settlement
amount of $1,000 was well below the jurisdictional minimum set
forth in § 1332(a), the district court did not err by dismissing
the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Rodriguez,
199 F.3d at 280.
Patel’s remaining claim is that the denial of his motion for
costs of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) was in
error. We lack jurisdiction to review this matter because Patel
failed to file a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s
order. See Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th
Cir. 1989).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --