Bank of America v. Florine Beeson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999691625-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999695904-3], denying Motion for other relief [999697881-2]; denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999695904-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-02926-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722220]. Mailed to: Florine Beeson, Henry Beeson. [15-2163]

Appeal: 15-2163

Doc: 23

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2163

BANK OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FLORINE BEESON; HENRY BEESON,
Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-02926-RMG)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Florine Beeson, Henry Beeson, Appellants Pro Se. William Price
Stork, BROCK & SCOTT, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2163

Doc: 23

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
The

Appellants,

Florine

and

Henry

Beeson,

removed

their

state foreclosure action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446

(2012).

The

district

court

adopted

the

magistrate

judge’s recommendation and remanded the case back to state court
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c) (2012).

Appellants seek to appeal that order and the

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
The district court’s order of remand is not reviewable by
this court.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); see also E.D. ex

rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 579 (4th Cir. 2013)
(section 1447(d) prohibits review of all remand orders pursuant
to § 1447(c)
deemed

“regardless of ‘whether or not that order might be

erroneous

by

[us].’”

(quoting

Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 351 (1976)).
the

Appellee’s

Appellants’

motion

motions

to

for

dismiss

the

injunctive

Thermtron

v.

Accordingly, we grant
appeal

relief

default judgment, and emergency relief.

Prods.

and

pending

deny

the

appeal,

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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2