Hudson City Savings Bank v. David Mattis

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 29, 2014
Docket14-1478
StatusUnpublished

This text of Hudson City Savings Bank v. David Mattis (Hudson City Savings Bank v. David Mattis) 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
Hudson City Savings Bank v. David Mattis, (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1478

HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK; JOSHUA R. PINYAN, Substitute Trustee; GRADY I. INGLE, Substitute Trustee; ELIZABETH B. ELLS, Substitute Trustee,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

DAVID M. MATTIS,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

MARGARET A. MATTIS,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00030-BO)

Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Mattis, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Kenneth Purser, SHAPIRO & INGLE LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

David M. Mattis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order remanding the underlying foreclosure 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 by § 1447, the

order is not appealable. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the material

before this 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

Related

E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc.
722 F.3d 574 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hudson City Savings Bank v. David Mattis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-city-savings-bank-v-david-mattis-ca4-2014.