Court Opinion

ID: 9957246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:24.393619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:12.533378
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7207      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7207

        SHARON R. WAZNEY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (3:23-cv-03497-JD)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert William Wazney, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7207      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert William Wazney seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting with

        modification the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying his motion to proceed

        in forma pauperis, and remanding the underlying proceeding back to state court after

        determining it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal.

               Section 1447(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code places “broad restrictions,”

        Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995), on the jurisdiction of

        courts of appeals to review remand orders. Generally, “[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). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in

        pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified

        in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, 516 U.S. at

        127. Thus, § 1447(d) bars appellate court review of remand orders when they are based on

        “(1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other

        than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30

        days after the notice of removal was filed.” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,

        519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Taking the requisite “brief peek” at the district court’s reasoning, we are satisfied

        that “a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was a colorable or plausible explanation of the

        legal ground on which the [district] court actually relied for remand.” Protopapas v.

        Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., ___ F.4th ___, No. 23-1339, 2024 WL 764144, at *4 (4th Cir.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7207         Doc: 11      Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        Feb. 26, 2024). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand

        order under § 1447(d) and thus dismiss this appeal. Id. at *7.

               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