Eileen Hing v. Glenn Hing

Filing 920090121

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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