Court Opinion

ID: 9381139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:18.311511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.149914
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2225      Doc: 18         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2225

        BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALLEGHANY COUNTY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DONNIE T.A.M. KERN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:22-cv-00424-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Donnie T. Kern, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Stanislaw Dadak, GUYNN WADDELL
        CARROLL & LOCKABY, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2225      Doc: 18         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Donnie T. Kern seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding the underlying

        civil action against Kern to the state court from which it was removed.

               [T]he law as it stands today provides that an order remanding a case to the
               State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or
               otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from
               which it was removed pursuant to [28 U.S.C. §] 1442 or [§] 1443 . . . shall
               be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.

        BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1536-37 (2021) (cleaned up).

        The district court remanded the case to state court after determining that it lacked subject

        matter jurisdiction. We therefore are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. See

        28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d).

               Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

                                                     2