Pikkert v. Pastene

Fourth Circuit

Pikkert v. Pastene

63 F. App'x 166

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 20, 2003·No. No. 03-1212·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Alexander Pastene seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order remanding his civil action to state court. The magistrate judge’s remand order is not reviewable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000). 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Alexander Pastene seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order remanding his civil action to state court. The magistrate judge’s remand order is not reviewable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000). 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.

Pikkert v. Pastene, 63 F. App'x 166 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

63 F. App'x 166 (Pikkert v. Pastene) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related