UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2225
DIANE S. ROSENBERG; MARK D. MEYER; JOHN A. ANSELL, III;
KENNETH SAVITZ; STEPHANIE MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
LUCREZIA IONA CANADAY; KEVIN C. BETSKOFF, JR.,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-01922-GLR)
Submitted: February 26, 2014 Decided: March 11, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lucrezia Iona Canaday; Kevin C. Betskoff, Jr., Appellants Pro
Se. Mark David Meyer, Stephanie R. Montgomery, ROSENBERG &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lucrezia Canaday and Kevin Betskoff, Jr., seek to
appeal the district court’s order remanding their case to state
court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An order
remanding a case to state court is generally not reviewable on
appeal or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). “Section
1447(c) allows a district court to remand based on: (1) a
district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a
defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction
. . . .” E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 579
(4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellate
review “is barred if the order was based on grounds in
§ 1447(c).” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations
omitted).
Thus, because the district court’s remand order was
grounded upon § 1447(c)(1), § 1447(d) requires that we dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In light of this
determination, we deny Appellants’ motion to stay. 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
2