Opinion
20-7567 20-7714
07-01-2021
SHARON RENEE CHABASSOLE, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY, Defendant-Appellant. SHARON RENEE CHABASSOLE, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Robert William Wazney, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 29, 2021
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-02399-HMH)
Robert William Wazney, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, Robert William Wazney seeks to appeal from the district court's orders: (1) denying his "motion to appeal" from the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying his motion for stay, and (2) adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding the underlying domestic proceeding back to state court. We dismiss the appeals. Remand orders are generally "not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). 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 remanded the case to the state court after finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court's orders. We deny Wazney's motion for oral argument via teleconference and 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