The Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland v. Hollis

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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