Sharon Wazney v. Robert Wazney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:17-cv-02873-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000356356]. Mailed to: Robert Wazney LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 990 Wisacky Highway Bishopville, SC 29010-2021 William Ceth Land. [18-6466]

Appeal: 18-6466

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/28/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6466

SHARON WAZNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT WAZNEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-02873-HMH)

Submitted: August 23, 2018

Decided: August 28, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Wazney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6466

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/28/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert Wazney appeals from the district court’s order adopting the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding the underlying divorce
proceeding back to state court. We dismiss the appeal. Remand orders are generally “not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court
has explained that the appellate restrictions of Ҥ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia
with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) [i.e., lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from review
under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995).
Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district court’s explicit citation to
§ 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d) applies to any order invoking substantively one of the
grounds specified in § 1447(c).” Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824-25 (4th
Cir. 2000).
Here, the district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing
§ 1447(c). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court’s
order. Thus, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2