Skyers v. Baltimore ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7283
AUDELY SKYERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RUSTY BALTIMORE; BALTIMORE BOND COMPANY;
PHILIP BALTIMORE,
Defendants- Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
99-2345-PJM)
Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Audely Skyers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Audely Skyers appeals from the district court’s order denying
his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his diversity action. We
find that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over this action for breach of contract. Skyers’ complaint only set
forth a claim that, if true, would entitle him to $4500 plus pre-
judgment interest. See Saval v. BL Ltd., 710 F.2d 1027, 1033-34
(4th Cir. 1983) (noting that under Maryland law, punitive damages
are not available on breach of contract claims absent a showing of
actual malice). Because Skyers failed to allege any facts or
claims supporting damages of at least $75,000, the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (West
Supp. 1999); see also Packard v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 994 F.2d
1039, 1045-46 (3d Cir. 1993) (“when it appears to a legal certainty
that the plaintiff was never entitled to recover the jurisdictional
amount, the case must be dismissed.”) (citing St. Paul Mercury In-
demnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289-90 (1938)). Accord-
ingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2