Bank of America, NA v. Nelson Bruce

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:17-cv-02617-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000313643]. Mailed to: Nelson Bruce. [18-1363]

Appeal: 18-1363

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/18/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1363

BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NELSON L. BRUCE,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSING TRUST FUND; CHARLESTON AREA CDC;
SC HOUSING CORP; CAPITAL RETURN INVESTMENTS LLC; REMINISCE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:17-cv-02617-RMG)

Submitted: June 14, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: June 18, 2018

Appeal: 18-1363

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/18/2018

Nelson L. Bruce, Appellant Pro Se.
Tampa, Florida, for Appellee.

Pg: 2 of 3

Brandon Stuart Vesely, ALBERTELLI LAW,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 18-1363

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/18/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nelson L. Bruce seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this foreclosure proceeding to
the South Carolina 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 Ҥ 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, Ҥ 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 [raised
by a timely motion].” Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation
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 this 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
3