David Simpson v. Jennifer Wilson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00576-MOC-DSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998949209]. Mailed to: Jennifer Wilson. [12-1497]

Appeal: 12-1497

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/01/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1497
DAVID A. SIMPSON, P.C., substitute Trustee,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JENNIFER L. WILSON,
Defendant – Appellant,
v.
AURORA BANK FSB; AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,
Third Party Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00576-MOC-DSC)
Submitted:

September 27, 2012

Decided:

October 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer L. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Renner Jo Eberlein,
ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1497

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/01/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jennifer L. Wilson appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and remanding the
underlying action to North Carolina state court.

We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
“Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power
of

federal

appellate

courts

to

review

district

court

orders

remanding removed cases to state court.”

Things Remembered,

Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995).

Thus, remand orders

are

generally

“not

reviewable

U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006).

on

appeal

or

otherwise.”

28

The Supreme Court has explained that

the appellate restrictions of Ҥ 1447(d) must be read in pari
materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds
specified

in

§

1447(c)

[i.e.,

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from
review under § 1447(d).”

Things Remembered, 516 U.S. at 127.

Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district
court’s explicit citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d)
applies to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds
specified in § 1447(c).”

Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d

819, 824–25 (4th Cir. 2000).
Here, the district court’s remand was based on its
finding
case.

that

it

lacked

subject

matter

jurisdiction

over

the

Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction to review the
2

Appeal: 12-1497

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/01/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

merits of the district court’s order, we dismiss the appeal.
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

3