Kristine Brown v. Alphonso Matthew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-01333-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999974462]. Mailed to: appellants. [16-1660]

Appeal: 16-1660

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1660

KRISTINE D. BROWN; WILLIAM M. SAVAGE; GREGORY N. BRITTO;
LILA Z. STITELY; BRETT A. CALLAHAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ALPHONSO MATTHEWS; ZEKIYYA MATTHEWS,
Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:16-cv-01333-RWT)

Submitted:

November 18, 2016

Decided:

November 23, 2016

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonso Matthews, Zekiyya Matthews, Appellants Pro Se. William
Mapp Savage, SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP, Manassas, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1660

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Appellants

Alphonso

Matthews

and

Zekiyya

Matthews

were

named as defendants in a foreclosure action in Maryland state
court.

After they removed the action to federal court, the

district

court

remanded

the

case

sua

sponte

to

state

court.

Appellants now seek to appeal the district court’s remand order.
We are obliged to consider sua sponte our jurisdiction to
hear the appeal.

See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237,

246 (4th Cir. 2011).

Because we construe the district court’s

remand order as predicating remand on a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012), we conclude the
district court’s order is not reviewable by this court.

See

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 67 (4th
Cir. 2016); see also E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722
F.3d

574,

prohibits

579

(4th

review

of

“regardless
erroneous

of
by

Cir.
all

whether
us”

2013)

remand
or

not

(brackets

(recognizing
orders
that

and

that

pursuant
order

internal

to

might

§ 1447(d)
§ 1447(c)
be

quotation

deemed
marks

omitted)).
Accordingly,

we

matter jurisdiction.
facts

and

legal

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

subject

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 16-1660

Doc: 12

materials

before

Filed: 11/23/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3