Case Name: BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nehemiah BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-22
Citations: 709 F. App'x 200
Docket Number: No. 17-2074
Parties: BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nehemiah BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 200–200

Head Matter:
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nehemiah BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-2074
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 18, 2018
Decided: January 22, 2018
Nehemiah Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Edward Grimsley, GRIMSLEY LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina; Christina Rampey Hunoval, HUNOVAL LAW FIRM PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jonathan McKey Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nehemiah Bryant seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and remanding this removed action to the state court. 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, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012). Here, the remand was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in the removal procedure. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's order. We therefore 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