Dinesh Trinidade v. Federal National Mortgage

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00012-JPB-DJJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998919331]. Mailed to: Trinidade. [12-1616]

Appeal: 12-1616

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1616

DINESH B. TRINIDADE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00012-JPB-DJJ)

Submitted:

August 16, 2012

Decided:

August 20, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dinesh B. Trinidade, Appellant Pro Se.
Christopher Robert
Arthur, SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Charleston, West Virginia; Fabio
Crichigno, Sarah A. Crichigno, Morgantown, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1616

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association filed
an

unlawful

seeking

to

detainer
evict

action

Defendant

in

West

Dinesh

Virginia

B.

state

Trinidade.

court,

Trinidade

removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia.

Concluding that removal was

improper because the notice of removal was not timely filed, the
district

court

issued

an

order

remanding

Trinidade seeks to appeal. *

court.

the

case

to

state

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 . . . [28

reviewable.”

The

U.S.C.

Supreme

§] 1443
Court

[(2006)] . . . shall

has

limited

§ 1447(d)

be
to

insulate from appellate review those remand orders based on the
grounds

specified

in

§ 1447(c):

a

defect

in

procedure or a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

the

removal

Quackenbush

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

In this

case, the district court concluded that there was a defect in

*

The Appellant’s brief was filed by Sandra B. Trinidade,
Trinidade’s personal representative.
No party, however, has
moved for the substitution of parties under Fed. R. App. P.
43(a).

2

Appeal: 12-1616

the

Doc: 9

removal

Filed: 08/20/2012

procedure

timely filed.

because

Pg: 3 of 3

the

notice

of

removal

was

not

See Cades v. H & R Block, Inc., 43 F.3d 869, 873

(4th Cir. 1994) (“An untimely removal is a defect in removal
procedure.”).

Further, this case does not implicate § 1443.

Accordingly, the district court’s remand order is not subject to
appellate review.

Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,

519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3