Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01458/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01458-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kimmy R. Cathey
Appellant
Jeffrey Barry Fisher
Appellee
Carletta M. Grier
Appellee
Virginia S. Inzer
Appellee
William K. Smart
Appellee
Doreen A. Strothman
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1458

JEFFREY BARRY FISHER; DOREEN A. STROTHMAN; VIRGINIA S. INZER; 

WILLIAM K. SMART; CARLETTA M. GRIER,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

KIMMY R. CATHEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-01357-GJH)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimmy R. Cathey, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Stuart Goldberg, FISHER 

LAW GROUP, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1458 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kimmy R. Cathey 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 Cathey 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 this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-1458 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 2