UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1686
THE CLIENT PROTECTION FUND OF THE BAR OF MARYLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELDON S. HOLLIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00680-WDQ)
Submitted: January 31, 2011 Decided: February 25, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Meldon S. Hollis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leo Wesley Ottey, Jr.,
CHASE & CHASE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Meldon Hollis, Jr., appeals from the district court’s
order remanding the underlying action to Maryland state court
and imposing attorney’s fees against him. To the extent that
Hollis appeals the order remanding to state court, the order is
not appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). Accordingly,
we dismiss, in part, for lack of jurisdiction.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s
order granting attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
(2006). In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 733 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996). The
Supreme Court has held that, “absent unusual circumstances,
courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S.
132, 141 (2005). As noted by the district court, this was
Hollis’ second baseless attempt to remove the proceedings from
state court. Accordingly, we find that the award of $2275 was
well within the district court’s discretion and, therefore,
affirm in part.
In light of this disposition, we deny the Appellee’s
motion to dismiss the appeal as well as Hollis’ motion for
injunctive relief and to vacate the writ of garnishment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3