UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1616
DINESH B. TRINIDADE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00012-JPB-DJJ)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 20, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dinesh B. Trinidade, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Robert
Arthur, SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Charleston, West Virginia; Fabio
Crichigno, Sarah A. Crichigno, Morgantown, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association filed
an unlawful detainer action in West Virginia state court,
seeking to evict Defendant Dinesh B. Trinidade. Trinidade
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia. Concluding that removal was
improper because the notice of removal was not timely filed, the
district court issued an order remanding the case to state
court. Trinidade seeks to appeal. * 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 or 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 there was a defect in
*
The Appellant’s brief was filed by Sandra B. Trinidade,
Trinidade’s personal representative. No party, however, has
moved for the substitution of parties under Fed. R. App. P.
43(a).
2
the removal procedure because the notice of removal was not
timely filed. See Cades v. H & R Block, Inc., 43 F.3d 869, 873
(4th Cir. 1994) (“An untimely removal is a defect in removal
procedure.”). Further, this case does not implicate § 1443.
Accordingly, the district court’s remand order is not subject to
appellate review. Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,
519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, 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