Diane Rosenberg v. Lucrezia Canaday

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for stay pending appeal [999239333-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01922-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999312790]. Mailed to: K. Betsktoff, L. Canaday, S. Montgomery. [13-2225]

Appeal: 13-2225

Doc: 19

Filed: 03/11/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2225

DIANE S. ROSENBERG; MARK D. MEYER; JOHN A. ANSELL, III;
KENNETH SAVITZ; STEPHANIE MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
LUCREZIA IONA CANADAY; KEVIN C. BETSKOFF, JR.,
Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-01922-GLR)

Submitted:

February 26, 2014

Decided:

March 11, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lucrezia Iona Canaday; Kevin C. Betskoff, Jr., Appellants Pro
Se.
Mark David Meyer, Stephanie R. Montgomery, ROSENBERG &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2225

Doc: 19

Filed: 03/11/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Lucrezia

Canaday

and

Kevin

Betskoff,

Jr.,

seek

to

appeal the district court’s order remanding their case to state
court

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.

An

order

remanding a case to state court is generally not reviewable on
appeal

or

1447(c)

otherwise.

allows

a

28

U.S.C.

district

court

§ 1447(d)
to

(2012).

remand

based

“Section
on:

(1)

a

district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a
defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction
. . . .”

E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 579

(4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
review

“is

§ 1447(c).”

barred
Id.

if

the

order

(internal

was

quotation

based
marks

on
and

Appellate
grounds

in

alterations

omitted).
Thus, because the district court’s remand order was
grounded upon § 1447(c)(1), § 1447(d) requires that we dismiss
the

appeal

for

lack

of

jurisdiction.

In

light

determination, we deny Appellants’ motion to stay.

of

this

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2