# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10122 Summary Calendar

**Candace Searcy,** Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus **Orchard National Title,** Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21

- CV

- 1910

Before **Davis, Smith,** and **Dennis,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Plaintiff

- Appellant, Candace Searcy, appeals the district court’s order remanding this matter to state court as improperly removed

. She also requests this Court to consider her motions for default judgment filed in state and federal court. Because the di strict court’s remand order is not reviewable as set forth in 28 U .S.C. § 1447(d), we **DISMISS** the appeal

.

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circu it 

### FILED January 3, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10122 Document: 00516595722 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023No. 22

- 10122

2 Searcy filed suit in Dallas County District Court against Orchard National Title and Courtney A nthony, a real estate broker

. She asserted claims for breach of contract, fraudulent price gouging, and malpractice in connection with a residential real estate contract. S earcy subsequently

remov ed her action to federal court on the grounds that she would be unable to receive justice in state cou rt. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the case be remanded as “ improperly removed .” 1 In her appellate brief, Searcy raises no legal arguments challenging the basis for the district court’s remand order , nor does she cite to any legal authority indicating that the district court’s decision to remand was

erroneous
. Instead, Searcy argues that she is entitled to a default judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21 because the defendants never answered her lawsuit

. Notwithstanding Searcy’s failure to identify any error by the district court, t his C ourt must first examine the basis of its jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order. See Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987 ) ( “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” ). “ Congress has severely circumscribed the power of federal appellate courts to review remand orders. ” S ee Schexnayder v. Entergy L a. , Inc ., 394 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2004). Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), prohibits our review of a remand order that is based “on either a lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in removal procedure. ”

1 As noted by the magistrate judge, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdic tion, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants , to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” (emphasis added). Case: 22-10122 Document: 00516595722 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2023No. 22

- 10122

3 Schexnayder , 394 F.3d at 283 ; see § 1447(d ). “ This bar to review appl ies even if the order might otherwise be deemed erroneous .” Price v. Johnson , 600 F.3d 460, 462 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted)

. The remand order was based on a defect in the removal procedure and lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. Specifically, u nder § 1441 (a) , a plaintiff is
not authorized to remove an action to federal court. Moreover, although Searcy asserted federal question jurisdiction, she included only state law causes of action in her complaint ; and she pleaded no facts supporting divers ity jurisdiction

. Consequently, under § 1447(d), we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order. Based on the foregoing, this appeal is **DISMISSED.** Case: 22-10122 Document: 00516595722 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/03/2023