Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Eddie Hunt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:13-cv-01333-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999326155]. Mailed to: Eddie Hunt, Teresa Hunt, Brett Kline, Priti Patel, Elizabeth Polk, Ronald Scott. [13-2450]

Appeal: 13-2450

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/31/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2450

WELLS FARGO BANK
N.A., Successor to Wachovia Bank N. A.,
formerly known as First Union National Bank,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDDIE D. HUNT; TERESA HUNT, a/k/a Teresa T. Hunt,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through its agency
Internal Revenue Service; MCM ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a
ServPro of Southeast Greenville,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(6:13-cv-01333-MGL)

Submitted:

March 27, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit
Circuit Judges.

Judge,

Decided: March 31, 2014

and

HAMILTON

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie D. Hunt, Teresa Hunt, Appellants Pro Se. James Y. Becker,
Emily H. Farr, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Columbia, South

Appeal: 13-2450

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/31/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2450

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/31/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Eddie

D.

Hunt

and

Teresa

Hunt

appeal

the

district

court’s order remanding the underlying action to South Carolina
state court.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “[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.A. § 1447(d)

(West Supp. 2013); see E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722
F.3d 574, 581–83 (4th Cir. 2013).

Because the district court’s

order does not fall within any of the exceptions provided by §
1447, the order is not appealable.
We therefore dismiss the Hunts’ appeal.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

material

before

this

court

and

argument will not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3