UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1174
RYNELE MAURICE MARDIS,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CAROLYN MARDIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-00374-JKB)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carolyn Mardis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn Mardis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order remanding this case to the Circuit Court for Howard
County, Maryland, from which it was removed. We dismiss the
appeal.
Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State
court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or
otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). The Supreme Court has
instructed that Ҥ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28
U.S.C.] § 1447(c) [(2006)], so that only remands based on
grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under
§ 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124,
127 (1995). Thus:
§ 1447(d) bars . . . review of a district court’s
remand order only if the order was issued under
§ 1447(c) and invoked the grounds specified therein,
. . . either (1) that the district court granted a
timely filed motion raising a defect in removal
procedure or (2) that it noticed a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196
(4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and
citations omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is
reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the
order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United
States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).
2
In this case, the district court remanded the action
because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited
authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand
order, and we dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s “Motion to Obtain
the Record by Court Order” is denied. 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
3