Eileen Hing v. Glenn Hing

Filing 920090121


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2292 EILEEN CHU HING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GLENN F. HING, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00210-BO) Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eileen Chu Hing, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant Eileen Chu Hing filed a complaint for divorce the in Pennsylvania to the state court. District Hing of subsequently Carolina. the removed case that Eastern matter North Concluding subject jurisdiction was lacking, district court dismissed and remanded the action back to the state court. Hing moved for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Hing Civ. P. 59(e), and the district court denied the motion. filed a timely appeal. the appeal. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) (2006), "[a]n 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 section 1443 . . . shall be reviewable . . . ." The Supreme Court has limited 1447(d) to insulate from appellate review those remand orders based on the grounds specified in 1447(c): a defect in the removal procedure and a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 517 U.S. 706, that 711-12 it Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., Because matter the district court under (1996). subject concluded lacked jurisdiction 1441, its remand order is not subject to appellate review. See Severonickel v. Gaston Reymenants, 115 F.3d 265, 266-69 (4th Cir. 1997); Mangold v. Analytic Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1442, 1450 2 (4th Cir. 1996); Noel v. McCain, 538 F.2d 633, 635 (4th Cir. 1976). Moreover, having determined that subject matter jurisdiction over Hing's case was lacking, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Hing's motion to reconsider. 1996). See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734-35 (4th Cir. We also deny Hing's We dispense with contentions the court are and Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. motion for a transcript at government expense. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before adequately presented materials argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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?