Pikkert v. Pastene

Fourth Circuit

Pikkert v. Pastene

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 2003

Docket03-1212

StatusUnpublished

This text of Pikkert v. Pastene (Pikkert v. Pastene) 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

Pikkert v. Pastene, (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1212

MARY ANNE PIKKERT,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALEXANDER PASTENE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-22-23AJ)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Pastene, Appellant Pro Se. David Scott Mathews, JASPER COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Ridgeland, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 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