John Howard, Sr. v. Starsha M. Sewell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2421
JOHN HOWARD, SR.,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STARSHA M. SEWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-
cv-01539-PWG)
Submitted: April 11, 2016 Decided: April 14, 2016
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Wanger, LAW OFFICE
OF DAVID WANGER, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dismissed by Supreme Court, October 11, 2016

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s orders
remanding this removed action to state court for lack of
jurisdiction and denying the motion for reconsideration. An
order remanding a case to state court is generally not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012).
The Supreme Court has limited the scope of § 1447(d),
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, remand was based on lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction. We deny the motion to transfer
and 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 of 2 --