UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHINAGOROM NONYELUM GODWIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.	No. 97-2300
GARY JOEL HILL,

Defendant-Appellee.	(D.C. No. CIV-97-903-SC)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff Chinagorom Nonyelum Godwin, appearing pro se, appeals the district

court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in concluding that the complaint did not meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.2 Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Painter v. Shalala, 97 F.3d 1351, 1355 (10th Cir. 1996). Applying this standard, we affirm.

On July 7, 1997, Plaintiff filed a complaint in district court alleging that Defendant Gary Joel Hill, an attorney retained by Plaintiff in criminal and immigration matters, failed to perform the services agreed to and refused to refund the $7,000 retainer paid to him by Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought recovery of the $7,000 retainer. The district court, sua sponte, reviewed its subject matter jurisdiction and concluded that Plaintiff's complaint alleged state law tort or contract claims which did not exceed $75,000. Consequently, because Plaintiff did not meet the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We have reviewed the parties' briefs, pleadings, and the entire record before us. We agree with the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge