UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1497
DAVID A. SIMPSON, P.C., substitute Trustee,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JENNIFER L. WILSON,
Defendant – Appellant,
v.
AURORA BANK FSB; AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,
Third Party Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00576-MOC-DSC)
Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer L. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Renner Jo Eberlein,
ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer L. Wilson appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and remanding the
underlying action to North Carolina state court. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
“Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power
of federal appellate courts to review district court orders
remanding removed cases to state court.” Things Remembered,
Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Thus, remand orders
are generally “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28
U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). The Supreme Court has explained that
the appellate restrictions of Ҥ 1447(d) must be read in pari
materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds
specified in § 1447(c) [i.e., lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from
review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, 516 U.S. at 127.
Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district
court’s explicit citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d)
applies to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds
specified in § 1447(c).” Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d
819, 824–25 (4th Cir. 2000).
Here, the district court’s remand was based on its
finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
case. Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction to review the
2
merits of the district court’s order, we dismiss the appeal. 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