John Driscoll, III v. Renee McCray


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01791-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000144707]. Mailed to: Renee L. McCray. [17-1501]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1501 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/28/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1501 JOHN E. DRISCOLL, III; ROBERT E. FRAZIER; JANA M. GANTT; LAURA D. HARRIS; KIMBERLY LANE; DEENA L. REYNOLDS, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. RENEE L. MCCRAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01791-GLR) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Renee L. McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harvey Hillman, SAMUEL I. WHITE PC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1501 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/28/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Renee L. McCray seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this foreclosure proceeding to the Maryland state court from which it was removed. Generally, “[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. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Thus, “§ 1447(d) is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of . . . § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . .” Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court remanded on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order and dismiss 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 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?