The Client Protection Fund of v. Meldon Hollis, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [998497394-2]; denying Motion to dismiss appeal [998389157-2]; denying Motion to vacate [998497394-3] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00680-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998532311] [10-1686]

The Client Protection Fund of v. Meldon Hollis, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1686

Document: 24

Date Filed: 02/25/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1686

THE CLIENT PROTECTION FUND OF THE BAR OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELDON S. HOLLIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cv-00680-WDQ)

Submitted:

January 31, 2011

Decided:

February 25, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Meldon S. Hollis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leo Wesley Ottey, Jr., CHASE & CHASE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1686

Document: 24

Date Filed: 02/25/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Meldon Hollis, Jr., appeals from the district court's order remanding the underlying action to Maryland state court and imposing attorney's fees against him. To the extent that

Hollis appeals the order remanding to state court, the order is not appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). Accordingly,

we dismiss, in part, for lack of jurisdiction. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's order granting attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2006). Supreme In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996). Court has held that, "absent unusual The

circumstances,

courts may award attorney's fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for

seeking removal." 132, 141 (2005).

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. As noted by the district court, this was

Hollis' second baseless attempt to remove the proceedings from state court. well within Accordingly, we find that the award of $2275 was the district court's discretion and, therefore,

affirm in part. In light of this disposition, we deny the Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal as well as Hollis' motion for We

injunctive relief and to vacate the writ of garnishment. dispense with oral argument because presented 2 the in facts the and

legal

contentions

are

adequately

materials

Case: 10-1686

Document: 24

Date Filed: 02/25/2011

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

3