State of MD v. Riffin
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF MARYLAND, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT; BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND,
THE Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus JAMES RIFFIN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:06-cv-02989-RDB)
February 28, 2007
March 21, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Riffin, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Dean Snyder, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Jeffrey A. Barmach, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: James Riffin appeals a district court order dismissing the action and remanding it to state court because Riffin's notice of removal was untimely. jurisdiction. "An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal. . . ." § 1447(d). 28 U.S.C. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
The Supreme Court has made clear that a remand order Things Remembered,
based on untimely removal is not appealable.
Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 126-28 (1995); see also Wilkins v. Rogers, 581 F.2d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 1978) (a district court's order finding that the notice of removal is not timely filed is not reviewable on appeal). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. 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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?