The Cameron v. Roy Sudduth

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998608941-2] Originating case number: 8:11-cv-00560-AW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998744569]. Mailed to: appellant. [11-1511]

Appeal: 11-1511

Document: 27

Date Filed: 12/15/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1511

THE CAMERON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROY SUDDUTH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:11-cv-00560-AW)

Submitted:

December 5, 2011

Decided:

December 15, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Sudduth, Appellant Pro Se.
BERBERT, SCHWARTZ & GILDAY,
Appellee.

Douglas Morton Bregman, BREGMAN,
LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1511

Document: 27

Date Filed: 12/15/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff

The

Cameron

filed

an

eviction

action

in

Maryland state court, alleging that Defendant Roy Sudduth was a
holdover tenant.

Sudduth removed the case to the United States

District Court for the District of Maryland.

Concluding that

subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint was lacking, the
district court issued an order remanding the action to state
court.

Sudduth

moved

for

reconsideration,

and

court issued an order denying the motion.
appeal from both orders.

the

district

Sudduth noted an

We dismiss the appeal.

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

reviewable.”

[28
The

U.S.C.

§] 1443

Supreme

Court

[(2006)] . . . shall
has

limited

§ 1447(d)

be
to

insulate from appellate review those remand orders based on the
grounds

specified

procedure

and

a

in

§ 1447(c):

lack

of

a

defect

subject

in

matter

the

removal

jurisdiction.

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996).
In

this

case,

the

district

court

concluded

that

it

lacked

subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.

Further, this

case

the

does

court’s

not

remand

implicate
order

is

§ 1443.
not

Accordingly,

subject
2

to

appellate

district
review.

Appeal: 11-1511

Document: 27

Date Filed: 12/15/2011

Page: 3 of 3

Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196
(4th

Cir.

2008).

Moreover,

having

determined

that

subject

matter jurisdiction over the action was lacking, the district
court was without jurisdiction to consider Sudduth’s motion to
reconsider.

In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734-36 (4th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly,

we

deny

pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

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.
DISMISSED

3