Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01879/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01879-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1879

JOHN E. DRISCOLL, III; LAURA D. HARRIS; DANIEL J. PESACHOWITZ; 

DEENA L. REYNOLDS, Substitute Trustee,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

SANDRA S. FORQUER,

Defendant – Appellant,

and

BARBARA S. FORQUER,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. 

(1:16-cv-02555-ELH)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

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

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra S. Forquer, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Brooks Riley, 

TREANOR, POPE & HUGHES, PA, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Appeal: 16-1879 Doc: 17 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1879 Doc: 17 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Sandra S. Forquer seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

remanding this removed action to the state court for lack of 

jurisdiction. With certain exceptions not applicable here, “[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 limited the scope of § 1447(d) to 

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, the remand was based on lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court lacks 

jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. We therefore 

deny Forquer leave to proceed in forma pauperis and grant 

Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal. 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 the decisional process.

DISMISSED 

Appeal: 16-1879 Doc: 17 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3