John Garvin v. South Carolina, State of

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to exceed length limitations [1000202494-2]; denying Motion for alteration and amendment to petition for removal of state proceeding in support of petition in error from judgment order for a writ or error [1000206488-2], denying Motion for petition in error from judgment order for a writ of error [1000206479-2] Originating case number: 2:17-cv-01605-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000259145]. Mailed to: John Dwayne Garvin. [17-7293, 17-7377]

Appeal: 17-7293

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/16/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7293

JOHN GARVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 17-7377

JOHN GARVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:17-cv-01605-DCN)

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Decided: March 16, 2018

Appeal: 17-7293

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/16/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-7293

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/16/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John Dwayne Garvin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders remanding his state
postconviction proceeding to the state court from which it was removed, denying his
motion to amend the notice of removal, and denying reconsideration of the remand order.
With certain 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.
§ 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has limited the scope of § 1447(d) to 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, the remand was based on lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s
orders.

We therefore dismiss the appeals.

Garvin’s motions to exceed the length

limitations for his informal brief, for a petition in error from judgment order for a writ of
error, and for alteration and amendment to petition for removal of state proceeding are
denied. 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

3