UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NANCY D. JONAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNISUN INSURANCE COMPANY; ORION
No. 00-1217
AUTO INCORPORATED; SVALINA,
RICHARDSON & LARSON; ALEXANDER
T. VIHIL,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-99-3869-9-8AJ)
Submitted: May 10, 2000
Decided: September 20, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Nancy D. Jonas, Appellant Pro Se. Ernest Mitchell Griffith, GRIF-
FITH & SADLER, Beaufort, South Carolina; David Jay Parrish,
NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS, POLLARD & ROBINSON, Charles-
ton, South Carolina; Jonathan Brent Kiker, KIKER & DOUDS, P.A.,
Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Nancy D. Jonas appeals the magistrate judge's order remanding a
civil case that Jonas, as the plaintiff, improperly removed from a
South Carolina state court. Jonas also appeals the district court's order
overruling her subsequent objections to the magistrate judge's order.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Although this court has not addressed whether a magistrate judge
may issue an order of remand (as opposed to issuing a report and rec-
ommendation for the district court's review), we grant the Defen-
dants' motion to dismiss as we find that the order is not reviewable.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (1994); Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermans-
dorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 342 (1976) (holding limited on other grounds,
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-15 (1996)); Koli-
bash v. Committee on Legal Ethics, 872 F.2d 571, 573 (4th Cir.
1989). The Supreme Court specifically stated that§ 1447(d) "prohib-
its review of all remand orders issued pursuant to§ 1447(c) whether
erroneous or not." Thermtron Prods., 423 U.S. at 342; see also In re
Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that once an order
of remand is entered, the federal courts no longer have jurisdiction
over the case).
Accordingly, we grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss 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
2