Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC v. Jamaal Gittens

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 14, 2025
Docket24-1327
StatusUnpublished

This text of Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC v. Jamaal Gittens (Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC v. Jamaal Gittens) 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
Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC v. Jamaal Gittens, (4th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1327 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1327

TRUSTEE SERVICES OF CAROLINA, LLC,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMAAL GITTENS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cv-00156-GCM)

Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 14, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamaal Gittens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1327 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jamaal Gittens seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this case to state

court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. With limited exceptions not applicable here,

a district court’s order remanding a removed case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d

64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[A] district court may remand a case sua sponte for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction at any time, and such an order is not reviewable.” (citations

omitted)). Accordingly, we deny Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to intervene, and we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Doe, 819 F.3d at 66. 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

Related

Doe Ex Rel. Houdersheldt v. Blair
819 F.3d 64 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC v. Jamaal Gittens, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustee-services-of-carolina-llc-v-jamaal-gittens-ca4-2025.