Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02421/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02421-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2421

JOHN HOWARD, SR.,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STARSHA M. SEWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-

cv-01539-PWG)

Submitted: April 11, 2016 Decided: April 14, 2016

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Wanger, LAW OFFICE 

OF DAVID WANGER, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dismissed by Supreme Court, October 11, 2016

Appeal: 15-2421 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s orders

remanding this removed action to state court for lack of 

jurisdiction and denying the motion for reconsideration. An 

order remanding a case to state court is generally not 

reviewable on appeal or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). 

The Supreme Court has limited the scope of § 1447(d),

prohibiting appellate review of remand orders based on a defect 

in the removal procedure or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996); 

see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012). Here, remand was based on lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. We deny the motion to transfer 

and 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

Appeal: 15-2421 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/14/2016 Pg: 2 of 2