Court Opinion

ID: 9881767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:41.116228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:59.598960
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1176     Doc: 17        Filed: 10/02/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 23-1176

        US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TRACIE L. GREEN, a/k/a Tracie Ledora Mitchem-Green,

                           Defendant - Appellant,

              and

        CARDINAL PINES HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.; PALMETTO
        CITIZENS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

                           Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (3:22-cv-04215-SAL)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                               Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1176      Doc: 17         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Tracie L. Green, Appellant Pro Se. John S. Kay, HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1176      Doc: 17         Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Tracie L. Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation and remanding Appellee’s action against her to the state court

        from which it was removed. The district court remanded the case after determining that it

        lacked subject matter jurisdiction. “Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power

        of federal appellate courts to review district court orders remanding removed cases to state

        court.” Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted);

        see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (providing that remand orders generally are “not reviewable on

        appeal or otherwise”). Section 1447(d) prohibits us from reviewing remand orders based

        on the grounds specified in § 1447(c), including “a district court’s lack of subject matter

        jurisdiction.” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). We look to the substance of a remand order to

        determine whether it was issued under § 1447(c). Doe, 819 F.3d at 67.

               Here, the district court remanded the case after having expressly determined that it

        lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We are therefore without jurisdiction to review the

        remand order. See id. at 66. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

        We deny Green’s motion to seal documents. 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

                                                     3