Filed: Jul. 31, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1168 DAVID B. CARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee, and RICHARD P. HORNE; DICK HORNE INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-3155-2-18AJ) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: July 31, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1168 DAVID B. CARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee, and RICHARD P. HORNE; DICK HORNE INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-3155-2-18AJ) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: July 31, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1168 DAVID B. CARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee, and RICHARD P. HORNE; DICK HORNE INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-3155-2-18AJ) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: July 31, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David B. Carr, Appellant Pro Se. John H. Tiller, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER, BOYD, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David B. Carr seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order remanding Carr’s civil action to the state court. Remand orders are generally not reviewable on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (1994). Accord- ingly, 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 2
