Barnes v. Johnson , 327 F. App'x 416 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1098
CALVIN BARNES; CHRISTINE BARNES,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and
SHRECO T. BURNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
RENARD JOHNSON; APPLE TITLE INTERNATIONAL, LLC; WILL
PURCELL,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MONTGOMERY CAPITAL CORPORATION; MICHAL JOHNSON, Individual
and Official Agent of Montgomery Capital Corp.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08-
cv-01056-RWT)
Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Barnes, Christine Barnes, Appellants Pro Se. Shirlie
Norris Lake, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Will
Purcell, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Calvin and Christine Barnes appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing their civil action without prejudice
for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
and denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking
reconsideration of the dismissal order. *
The Barneses filed a civil action asserting claims
under Maryland law arising out of a sale-leaseback transaction
among the Barneses, plaintiff Burnett, and Defendants. The
Barneses sought well over $75,000 in damages resulting from
Defendants’ alleged fraud and misrepresentation and claimed
jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship, see 28
U.S.C. § 1332 (2006). The complaint, however, failed to allege
facts sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship
between Plaintiffs and all Defendants. See Axel Johnson, Inc.
v. Carroll Carolina Oil Co., Inc., 145 F.3d 660, 663 (4th Cir.
1998). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the
action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
With regard to the Barneses’ Rule 59(e) motion, we
find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
*
Although the Barneses did not specify whether their
“motion for reconsideration” was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e) or 60(b), because it was filed within the ten-day limit
for Rule 59(e) motions, it is treated as such. See Dove v.
CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978).
3
denying the motion. See Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat’l Fire
Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders. Barnes, et al. v. Johnson,
et al., No. 8:08-cv-01056-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 25, 2008; Dec. 17,
2008). 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
4