Kristine Brown v. Alphonso Matthews

Fourth Circuit

Kristine Brown v. Alphonso Matthews

671 F. App'x 41

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 2016

Docket16-1660

StatusUnpublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 41 (Kristine Brown v. Alphonso Matthews) 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

Kristine Brown v. Alphonso Matthews, 671 F. App'x 41 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Alphonso Matthews and Ze-kiyya Matthews were named as defendants in a foreclosure action in Maryland state court. After they removed the action to federal court, the district court remanded the case sua sponte to state court. Appellants now seek to appeal the district court’s remand order.

We are obliged to consider sua sponte oui’ jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). Because we construe the district court’s remand order as predicating remand on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012), we conclude the district court’s order is not reviewable by this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 67 (4th Cir. 2016); see also E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 579 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that § 1447(d) prohibits review of all remand orders pursuant to § 1447(c) “regardless of whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by us” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Alphonso Matthews and Ze-kiyya Matthews were named as defendants in a foreclosure action in Maryland state court. After they removed the action to federal court, the district court remanded the case sua sponte to state court. Appellants now seek to appeal the district court’s remand order.

We are obliged to consider sua sponte oui’ jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). Because we construe the district court’s remand order as predicating remand on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012), we conclude the district court’s order is not reviewable by this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 67 (4th Cir. 2016); see also E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 579 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that § 1447(d) prohibits review of all remand orders pursuant to § 1447(c) “regardless of whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by us” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 F. App'x 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kristine-brown-v-alphonso-matthews-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack