Court Opinion

ID: 9400703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 21:01:05.327997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:47.371902
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1839      Doc: 27         Filed: 06/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1839

        KEITH M. YACKO,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MARILYN ELIZABETH HOWARD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-03763-CCB)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                              Decided: June 7, 2023

        Before WYNN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marilyn Elizabeth Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Brett Lawrence Messinger, DUANE
        MORRIS, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1839       Doc: 27         Filed: 06/07/2023       Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Marilyn Elizabeth Howard appeals from the district court’s orders remanding the

        case to state court and denying her motion to vacate. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal

        for lack of jurisdiction. We grant Appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

               “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 this court from reviewing remand orders which were based on

        the grounds specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)—i.e., “(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). This is so even where we conclude that the district

        court’s remand order was erroneous. Id. We look to the substance of a remand order to

        determine whether it was issued under § 1447(c). Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d

        819, 824-25 (4th Cir. 2000).

               Here, the district court initially remanded the case on the bases that the district court

        lacked jurisdiction over the foreclosure proceeding and that the removal notice was

        untimely, and the court explicitly cited § 1447(c). We dismissed Howard’s appeal, and the

        district court again entered a remand order based on its previous conclusions. That order

        and the denial of Howard’s subsequent motion to vacate are the orders here appealed.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1839         Doc: 27     Filed: 06/07/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        Because we lack jurisdiction to review the remand order or the denial of the motion to

        vacate for the reasons previously determined, we grant Appellee’s motion and dismiss the

        appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in materials before the court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                   DISMISSED

                                                   3