Hopewell Housing Authority v. Xavier Stoke
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00118-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998728219]. Mailed to: Xavier Stokes. [11-1474]
Appeal: 11-1474
Document: 12
Date Filed: 11/22/2011
Page: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1474
HOPEWELL HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
XAVIER STOKES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00118-REP)
Submitted:
November 17, 2011
Decided:
November 22, 2011
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Xavier Stokes, Appellant Pro Se. James J. Vergara, Jr., VERGARA
& ASSOCIATES, Hopewell, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-1474
Document: 12
Date Filed: 11/22/2011
Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Xavier
Stokes
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
remanding this case to state court and granting Hopewell Housing
Authority
attorney
fees
and
costs.
We
dismiss
in
part
and
affirm in part.
Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State
court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or
otherwise.”
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006).
The Supreme Court has
instructed that Ҥ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28
U.S.C.]
§
1447(c)
[(2006)],
so
that
only
remands
based
on
grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under
§ 1447(d).”
Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124,
127 (1995).
Thus:
§ 1447(d) bars . . . review of a district court’s
remand order only if the order was issued under
§ 1447(c)
and
invoked
the
grounds
specified
therein, . . . either (1) that the district court
granted a timely filed motion raising a defect in
removal procedure or (2) that it noticed a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196
(4th
Cir.
2008)
(internal
citations omitted).
reviewable
under
quotation
marks,
alterations
and
“Whether a district court’s remand order is
§ 1447(d)
is
not
determined
order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.”
States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).
2
by
whether
the
Borneman v. United
Appeal: 11-1474
Document: 12
Date Filed: 11/22/2011
Page: 3 of 3
In this case, the district court remanded the action
because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Under the cited
authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the district
court’s
decision
to
remand
the
case
to
state
court,
and
we
dismiss this portion of the appeal.
With
regard
to
the
district
court’s
award
of
attorneys’ fees and costs, we have reviewed the record and find
no abuse of discretion.
Corp.,
650
F.3d
163,
See Calabro v. Aniqa Halal Live Poultry
165-66
&
n.2
(2d
Cir.
2011)
(stating
standard of review and collecting cases holding that appellate
court has jurisdiction to review order awarding fees and costs).
Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order for
the reasons stated by the district court.
Hopewell Hous. Auth.
v. Stokes, No. 3:11-cv-00118-REP (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2011).
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
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?