Case Name: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Annette I. Riley CLARKE, a/k/a Annette I. Riley, Defendant-Appellant, and Marlon Clarke; Cach, LLC; Bank of America, N.A.; Wells Fargo, N.A., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-27
Citations: 707 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 17-2095
Parties: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Annette I. Riley CLARKE, a/k/a Annette I. Riley, Defendant-Appellant, and Marlon Clarke; Cach, LLC; Bank of America, N.A.; Wells Fargo, N.A., Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Annette I. Riley CLARKE, a/k/a Annette I. Riley, Defendant-Appellant, and Marlon Clarke; Cach, LLC; Bank of America, N.A.; Wells Fargo, N.A., Defendants.
No. 17-2095
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: December 27, 2017
Annette I. Riley Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Allen Calub, MCGUIRE-WOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Christina Rampey Hunoval, HUNOVAL LAW FIRM PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Annette Riley Clarke seeks to appeal the district court's order remanding a removed foreclosure action to South Carolina state court. "[A] district court may remand a case sua spcrnte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and such an order is not reviewable, id. § 1447(d)." Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 2016). The district court remanded Clarke's removed action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, explaining that the complaint did not present a federal question and that diversity of citizenship was lacking. Because the district court remanded the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we lack jurisdiction to review its order. Id. Accordingly, we 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