Case Name: D. Patrick SMITHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-29
Citations: 683 F. App'x 325
Docket Number: No. 16-20328
Parties: D. Patrick SMITHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
D. Patrick SMITHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-20328
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 29, 2017
D. Patrick Smitherman, Pro Se
Michael Clifton Maus, Litigation Counsel, Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Turner & Engel, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
D. Patrick Smitherman, proceeding pro se, brought suit against Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC in Texas state court, alleging various state law claims regarding foreclosure proceedings related to Smitherman's mortgage loan. Bayview removed to federal court under a diversity jurisdiction theory. The district court denied Smitherman's motion to remand and then dismissed Smitherman's claims with prejudice.
We ordered a limited remand to the district court to permit supplementation of the record and to make findings regarding Bayview's citizenship. The district court then issued an order vacating its judgment and remanding the case to state court. Because the district court lacked the authority to do so, we construe it's order to be an indicative ruling made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a)(3).
Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the district court and DISMISS the appeal as moot and relinquish jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1(b).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.