David DeHorse v. Catherine DeHorse

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 27, 2014
• Docket: 13-2372
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2372

DAVID S. DEHORSE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CATHERINE M. DEHORSE; MICHAEL A. DEHORSE; CATHERINE L. DEHORSE; CALLIE L. DEHORSE,

Defendants – Appellees,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Third Party Defendant,

GUY GUSTAVE HARDMAN, II,

Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00762-FL)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David S. DeHorse, Appellant Pro Se. James Albert McLean, III, MCCOY, WIGGINS, CLEVELAND & O’CONNOR, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

David S. DeHorse appeals the district court’s order

remanding the underlying action to North Carolina state court.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “[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); see E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574,

581–83 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the district court’s order does

not fall within any of the exceptions provided under § 1447, the

order is not appealable.

We therefore grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss

DeHorse’s appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

material before this court and argument will not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED