Opinion
No. 18-2484
04-08-2019
KEITH M. YACKO, Substitute Trustee; ROBERT E. FRAZIER, Substitute Trustee; THOMAS J. GARTNER, Substitute Trustee; LAURA D. HARRIS, Substitute Trustee; ROBERT M. OLIVERI, Substitute Trustee; THOMAS W. HODGE, Substitute Trustee; GENE JUNG, Substitute Trustee, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. TIFFANY L. NOELS, Defendant - Appellant, and DARRYL NOELS, Defendant.
Tiffany Lagenia Noels, Appellant Pro Se. Christine N. Johnson, BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-03604-GJH) Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tiffany Lagenia Noels, Appellant Pro Se. Christine N. Johnson, BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Tiffany Lagenia Noels seeks to appeal the district court's order remanding the underlying foreclosure proceeding to state court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Remand orders are generally "not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has explained that the appellate restrictions of "§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) [i.e., lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from review under § 1447(d)." Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district court's explicit citation to § 1447(c); "[t]he bar of § 1447(d) applies to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds specified in § 1447(c)." Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824-25 (4th Cir. 2000).
Here, the district court clearly remanded this case based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court's order. Thus, we deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and we dismiss the appeal. 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