Case Name: CHRISTIANA TRUST, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity, but solely as owner trustee on behalf of RBSHD 2013-1 Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Bank of America, NA, Plaintiff, v. Juliett MARSH-DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant, and Cornell D. Davis; American Express Centurion Bank; Carriage Lane Homeowners Association Inc., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-27
Citations: 707 F. App'x 183
Docket Number: No. 17-2099
Parties: CHRISTIANA TRUST, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity, but solely as owner trustee on behalf of RBSHD 2013-1 Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Bank of America, NA, Plaintiff, v. Juliett MARSH-DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant, and Cornell D. Davis; American Express Centurion Bank; Carriage Lane Homeowners Association Inc., Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 183–184

Head Matter:
CHRISTIANA TRUST, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity, but solely as owner trustee on behalf of RBSHD 2013-1 Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Bank of America, NA, Plaintiff, v. Juliett MARSH-DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant, and Cornell D. Davis; American Express Centurion Bank; Carriage Lane Homeowners Association Inc., Defendants.
No. 17-2099
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: December 27, 2017
Juliett Marsh-Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Price Stork, SCOTT & CORLEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juliett Marsh-Davis has noted an appeal from the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the Plaintiffs motion to remand, and remanding a removed foreclosure action to South Carolina state court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012), an order remanding a case from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal. The district court remanded Marsh-Davis' removed action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the district court remanded the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we lack jurisdiction to review the order. Accordingly, we grant the Appellee's 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