Wilson Ochar v. Bank of America

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 1, 2024
• Docket: 24-1644
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1644 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1644

WILSON OCHAR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:24-cv-00969-CMH-WBP)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: October 1, 2024

Before WYNN, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilson Ochar, Appellant Pro Se. Nathaniel Patrick Lee, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1644 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Wilson Ochar filed this action in a Virginia circuit court, then removed it to federal

court. The district court remanded the case back to the state court, explaining that a plaintiff

cannot remove his own case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (providing that only “the defendant

or the defendants” may remove state action to federal court). Ochar seeks to appeal.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), this court cannot review a remand order based on

a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis,

Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008). Section 1441(a)’s limitations on removal are

jurisdictional in nature. See Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327, 333-34

(4th Cir. 2008). Thus, we conclude that the district court’s dismissal was based on a defect

in subject matter jurisdiction, thereby precluding us from considering this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny each of

Ochar’s pending motions. 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