Case ID: f-appx_711/html/0177-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:'", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward S. COHN; Stephen N. Goldberg, Substitute Trustee; Richard E. Solomon, Substitute Trustee; Richard J. Rogers, Substitute Trustee; Randall J. Rolls, Substitute Trustee, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John H. HARDING, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-2434
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 15, 2018
    Decided: February 16, 2018
    
      John H. Harding, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. .

PER CURIAM:'

John H. Harding seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this foreclosure proceeding to the Maryland state court from which it was removed. Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995). Thus, § 1447(d)

is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of ... § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.

Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).

The district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED