recognizing that § 1447(d) prohibits review of all remand orders pursuant to § 1447(c) “regardless of whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by us” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that § 1447(d) prohibits review of all remand orders pursuant to § 1447(c) “regardless of whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by us” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1660
KRISTINE D. BROWN; WILLIAM M. SAVAGE; GREGORY N. BRITTO;
LILA Z. STITELY; BRETT A. CALLAHAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ALPHONSO MATTHEWS; ZEKIYYA MATTHEWS,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:16-cv-01333-RWT)
Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alphonso Matthews, Zekiyya Matthews, Appellants Pro Se. William
Mapp Savage, SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP, Manassas, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Alphonso Matthews and Zekiyya Matthews were
named as defendants in a foreclosure action in Maryland state
court. After they removed the action to federal court, the
district court remanded the case sua sponte to state court.
Appellants now seek to appeal the district court’s remand order.
We are obliged to consider sua sponte our jurisdiction to
hear the appeal. See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237,
246 (4th Cir. 2011). Because we construe the district court’s
remand order as predicating remand on a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012), we conclude the
district court’s order is not reviewable by this court. See
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 67 (4th
Cir. 2016); see also E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722
F.3d 574, 579 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that § 1447(d)
prohibits review of all remand orders pursuant to § 1447(c)
“regardless of whether or not that order might be deemed
erroneous by us” (brackets and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3