Fry v. Wimbish

Fourth Circuit

Fry v. Wimbish

598 F. App'x 195

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 2015

DocketNo. 15-1044

StatusPublished

This text of 598 F. App'x 195 (Fry v. Wimbish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fry v. Wimbish, 598 F. App'x 195 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cassandra Jean Fry appeals the district court’s orders remanding this removed action to state court for lack of jurisdiction and denying 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, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012). In this case, remand was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody dispute.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cassandra Jean Fry appeals the district court’s orders remanding this removed action to state court for lack of jurisdiction and denying 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, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012). In this case, remand was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody dispute.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 F. App'x 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fry-v-wimbish-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack