JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Robert Wazney
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [1000330054-2]; denying Motion for summary disposition [1000347990-2]; denying Motion for stay pending appeal. [1000314185-2] Originating case number: 3:18-cv-00921-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Robert Wazney LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 990 Wisacky Highway Bishopville, SC 29010-2021. [18-6693]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
ROBERT W. WAZNEY, a/k/a Robert William 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. (3:18-cv-00921-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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Nicholas Andrew Charles, Sarah Beth Nielsen, B.
Rush Smith, III, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Robert Wazney appeals from the district court’s order adopting the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding the underlying foreclosure
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 “§ 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
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 grant JP Morgan Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We deny
Wazney’s motions for a stay pending appeal and for summary judgment, and 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.
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?