Bruce Edward Phillips, Jr. v. Whilimena McKinny

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000256183-2] Originating case number: 1:17-cv-01299-TSE-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000269297]. Mailed to: Bruce Phillips. [18-1154]

Appeal: 18-1154

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1154

BRUCE EDWARD PHILLIPS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WHILIMENA MCKINNY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01299-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: March 29, 2018

Decided: April 3, 2018

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce E. Phillips, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1154

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Bruce Edward Phillips seeks to appeal the district court’s orders remanding his
complaint to state court, denying reconsideration, and imposing a prefiling injunction
requiring Phillips to obtain the permission of the district court prior to filing any further
actions or motions. With respect to the district court’s order remanding the complaint to
state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that order is not reviewable. See 28
U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); see also Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Grp., LLC, 880 F.3d 668,
673 (4th Cir. 2018) (where order of remand is based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, appellate review is prohibited). In addition, the district court also properly
denied Phillips’ motion for reconsideration, as a district court cannot reconsider its ruling
remanding a case to state court. See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733-36 (4th Cir. 1996).
Finally, Phillips has failed in his informal brief on appeal to challenge the district court’s
imposition of the prefiling injunction and has thus forfeited appellate review of that issue.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 in the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

2