Irongate Mutual Homes, Inc. v. Sherri Richardson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-2238
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2238 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/19/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2238

IRONGATE MUTUAL HOMES, INC., trading as Pear Tree Park Townhomes,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHERRI RICHARDSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (4:24-cv-00070-EWH-RJK-1)

Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 19, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherri Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2238 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/19/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Sherri Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the motion to

remand filed by Irongate Mutual Homes, Inc. (“Irongate”), and remanding Irongate’s suit

to Virginia state court. A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court

of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction . . . to the district

court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such

action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “An 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). But § 1447(d)’s prohibition is limited to remand orders based on a lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Thermtron Prods., Inc. v.

Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 346-52 (1976), overruled on other grounds by

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996). “We . . . look to the substantive

reasoning behind the order to determine whether it was issued based upon the district

court’s perception that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.” In re Blackwater Sec.

Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576, 584 (4th Cir. 2006).

Here, the district court remanded Irongate’s suit based on its determination that it

lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. And Richardson’s

counterclaims, raising various claims under federal law, cannot serve as grounds for

removal. See Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 24 F.4th 271, 279

(4th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, § 1447(d) prohibits review of the district court’s order, so

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2238 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/19/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED