UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2187
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Petitioner - Appellee,
and
SATTERFIELD LEGAL, PLLC, SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE; SARAH BANKS,
SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE, ATTORNEY IN FACT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LYNTON YATES BALLENTINE, JR.; LB INTERNATIONAL EXPRESS
TRUST, NON CORPORATE ENTITY (RELA PARTY IN INTEREST,
TERTIUS INTERVENIE),
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00509-CCE-JEP)
Submitted: February 26, 2018 Decided: March 7, 2018
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lynton Ballentine, Appellant Pro Se. Aleksandra Elzbieta Anderson, John T. Benjamin,
Jr., William Earle Hubbard, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. BENJAMIN, JR., PA, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal from the district court’s order adopting the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding the foreclosure action filed
against Appellants back to state court. We dismiss the appeal.
Remand orders are generally “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(d). The Supreme Court has explained that the appellate restrictions of “§ 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, Inc. v.
Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). 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 explicitly noted that there was no subject matter
jurisdiction and cited § 1447(c). Because the basis for remand fell within the ambit of
§ 1447(c), we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court’s order. Thus, 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