Keith Yacko v. Marilyn Howard

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 7, 2023
• Docket: 22-1839
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1839 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1839

KEITH M. YACKO,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARILYN ELIZABETH HOWARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-03763-CCB)

Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: June 7, 2023

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marilyn Elizabeth Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Brett Lawrence Messinger, DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1839 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Marilyn Elizabeth Howard appeals from the district court’s orders remanding the

case to state court and denying her motion to vacate. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. We grant Appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

“Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power of federal appellate courts to

review district court orders remanding removed cases to state court.” Doe v. Blair, 819

F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)

(providing that remand orders generally are “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”).

Section 1447(d) prohibits this court from reviewing remand orders which were based on

the grounds specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)—i.e., “(1) a district court’s lack of subject

matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction

that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of removal was

filed.” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008)

(internal quotation marks omitted). This is so even where we conclude that the district

court’s remand order was erroneous. Id. We look to the substance of a remand order to

determine whether it was issued under § 1447(c). Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d

819, 824-25 (4th Cir. 2000).

Here, the district court initially remanded the case on the bases that the district court

lacked jurisdiction over the foreclosure proceeding and that the removal notice was

untimely, and the court explicitly cited § 1447(c). We dismissed Howard’s appeal, and the

district court again entered a remand order based on its previous conclusions. That order

and the denial of Howard’s subsequent motion to vacate are the orders here appealed.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1839 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/07/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

Because we lack jurisdiction to review the remand order or the denial of the motion to

vacate for the reasons previously determined, we grant Appellee’s motion and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED