John Howard, Sr. v. Starsha Sewell
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying motion transfer case [999720415-2] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-01539-PWG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999795250]. Mailed to: appellant and David A. Wanger.. [15-2421]
Appeal: 15-2421
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/14/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2421
JOHN HOWARD, SR.,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STARSHA M. SEWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15cv-01539-PWG)
Submitted:
April 11, 2016
Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.
and
DIAZ,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
April 14, 2016
DAVIS,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.
David A. Wanger, LAW OFFICE
OF DAVID WANGER, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-2421
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/14/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Starsha
remanding
Sewell
this
appeals
removed
the
action
district
to
state
court’s
court
for
orders
lack
jurisdiction and denying the motion for reconsideration.
order
remanding
a
case
to
state
court
is
generally
of
An
not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012).
The
the
Supreme
Court
has
limited
scope
of
§ 1447(d),
prohibiting appellate review of remand orders based on a defect
in the removal procedure or lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996);
see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012).
Here, remand was based on lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
and dispense
with
oral
argument
Accordingly, we dismiss the
We deny the motion to transfer
because
the
facts
and
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?