
    Alfred C. PUCCI, Plaintif-Appellant, v. Barbara Berish BROWN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-2448-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 31, 2011.
    Alfred C. Pucci, pro se, Montrose, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    No appearance for Defendant-Appellee.
    Present: ROBERT D. SACK, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Alfred C. Pucci (“Pucci”), pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, C.J.), entered May 5, 2010, sua sponte dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Celestine v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Ctr., 403 F.3d 76, 79-80 (2d Cir.2005). “It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack the power to disregard such limits as have been imposed by the Constitution or Congress.” Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodg-son & Cortese-Costa, P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Pucci’s complaint suggests no basis for federal question jurisdiction, as he is not suing under the Constitution or any federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor has Pucci pleaded any basis for a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction in this matter because, although he and the defendant are alleged to be diverse in citizenship, Pucci has failed to plead any amount in controversy, let alone an amount in excess of $75,000. See, e.g., Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 273 (2d Cir.1994) (“[T]he party asserting diversity jurisdiction in federal court has the burden of establishing the existence of the jurisdictional amount in controversy.”); Tongkook Am., Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781, 784 (2d Cir.1994) (“A party invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court has the burden of proving that it appears to a ‘reasonable probability’ that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount.”).

Finally, we decline to remand to the district court to permit the pro se plaintiff to replead. On independent review of the record, “we do not find that the complaint liberally read suggests that the plaintiff has a claim that [ ]he has inadequately or inartfully pleaded and that [ ]he should therefore be given a chance to reframe.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While Pucci argues that he “entered into an implied and oral contract” with the DefendanL-Appellee for certain services, the documents he himself has provided refute this assertion. The record thus leaves no possibility that Plaintiff could assert a viable claim against this defendant.

We have considered all of Plaintiff-Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  