Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02163/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2163

BANK OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

FLORINE BEESON; HENRY BEESON,

 Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (2:15-cv-02926-RMG)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Florine Beeson, Henry Beeson, Appellants Pro Se. William Price 

Stork, BROCK & SCOTT, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2163 Doc: 23 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

The Appellants, Florine and Henry Beeson, removed their 

state foreclosure action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446 (2012). The district court adopted the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and remanded the case back to state court 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c) (2012). Appellants seek to appeal that order and the 

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. 

The district court’s order of remand is not reviewable by 

this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); see also E.D. ex 

rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 579 (4th Cir. 2013) 

(section 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].’” (quoting Thermtron Prods. v. 

Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 351 (1976)). Accordingly, we grant 

the Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and deny the 

Appellants’ motions for injunctive relief pending appeal, 

default judgment, and emergency relief. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-2163 Doc: 23 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2