UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1511
THE CAMERON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROY SUDDUTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:11-cv-00560-AW)
Submitted: December 5, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy Sudduth, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Morton Bregman, BREGMAN,
BERBERT, SCHWARTZ & GILDAY, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff The Cameron filed an eviction action in
Maryland state court, alleging that Defendant Roy Sudduth was a
holdover tenant. Sudduth removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. Concluding that
subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint was lacking, the
district court issued an order remanding the action to state
court. Sudduth moved for reconsideration, and the district
court issued an order denying the motion. Sudduth noted an
appeal from both orders. We dismiss the appeal.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006), “[a]n order
remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is
not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order
remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed
pursuant to [28 U.S.C. §] 1443 [(2006)] . . . shall be
reviewable.” The Supreme Court has limited § 1447(d) to
insulate from appellate review those remand orders based on the
grounds specified in § 1447(c): a defect in the removal
procedure and a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996).
In this case, the district court concluded that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Further, this
case does not implicate § 1443. Accordingly, the district
court’s remand order is not subject to appellate review.
2
Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196
(4th Cir. 2008). Moreover, having determined that subject
matter jurisdiction over the action was lacking, the district
court was without jurisdiction to consider Sudduth’s motion to
reconsider. In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734-36 (4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and 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