Court Opinion

ID: 1002028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:04:51.681997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:19:35.274284
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PAMELA ANNE R. HANKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                        No. 99-2011
FRANCES ELLEDGE COAN; JOHN COAN,
III,
Defendants-Appellees.

FRANCES ELLEDGE COAN, individually
and as Trustee for the Frances E.
Coan Trust,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PAMELA ANNE R. HANKS,
                                                        No. 99-2012
Defendant-Appellant,

FRANK OKCETIN; DANIEL CRAWFORD;
THE PHOENIX COMPANY; CHRIS
MEINBERG; SUZANNA TORRES; JOHN
OTTS COAN, JR.,
Movants.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
William L. Osteen, District Judge.
(CA-99-119-1, CA-99-120-1)

Submitted: June 20, 2000

Decided: July 20, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Pamela Anne R. Hanks, Appellant Pro Se. David Coventry Smith,
KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P., Winston-Salem, North Carolina;
Harry Lee Davis, Jr., DAVIS & HAMRICK, L.L.P., Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In January of 1999, Frances Coan filed a complaint and motion for
preliminary injunction against Pamela Hanks in North Carolina state
court. Alleging diversity of citizenship, Hanks removed the matter to
the district court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Coan sub-
sequently filed a motion to remand the matter due to a lack of diver-
sity between the parties. Following a hearing on the diversity issue,
the district court granted the motion to remand on June 9, 1999.

Hanks appeals the district court's order remanding her case to
North Carolina state court based upon lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion (No. 99-2012). We do not have jurisdiction to review the remand
order. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) (1994); Thermtron Prods. Inc. v. Her-
mansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 346 (1976). Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal in No. 99-2012 for lack of jurisdiction.

On February 16, 1999, Hanks filed a complaint in the district court
against Frances Coan and John Coan, III, again asserting diversity as
the basis for federal jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on August 17, 1999.

                     2
Hanks' July 9, 1999, notice of appeal filed in Coan v. Hanks, No. 99-
2012, was also docketed in Hanks v. Coan, No. CA-99-119-1
(M.D.N.C.), giving rise to No. 99-2011. Because the notice of appeal
filed in connection with Hanks v. Coan refers to the district court's
order remanding Coan v. Hanks to North Carolina state court, and
because the district court entered no appealable order in this action
prior to Hanks' notice of appeal, we dismiss Hanks' appeal in No. 99-
2011. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B).

Finally, we deny Hanks' motions for appointment of counsel and
production of a transcript at government expense. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    3