Filed: Mar. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2372 DAVID S. DEHORSE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CATHERINE M. DEHORSE; MICHAEL A. DEHORSE; CATHERINE L. DEHORSE; CALLIE L. DEHORSE, Defendants – Appellees, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Third Party Defendant, GUY GUSTAVE HARDMAN, II, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00762-FL) Submitted: March 25
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2372 DAVID S. DEHORSE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CATHERINE M. DEHORSE; MICHAEL A. DEHORSE; CATHERINE L. DEHORSE; CALLIE L. DEHORSE, Defendants – Appellees, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Third Party Defendant, GUY GUSTAVE HARDMAN, II, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00762-FL) Submitted: March 25,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2372
DAVID S. DEHORSE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CATHERINE M. DEHORSE; MICHAEL A. DEHORSE; CATHERINE L.
DEHORSE; CALLIE L. DEHORSE,
Defendants – Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Third Party Defendant,
GUY GUSTAVE HARDMAN, II,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00762-FL)
Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David S. DeHorse, Appellant Pro Se. James Albert McLean, III,
MCCOY, WIGGINS, CLEVELAND & O’CONNOR, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
David S. DeHorse appeals the district court’s order
remanding the underlying action to North Carolina state court.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n order
remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is
not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)
(2012); see E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc.,
722 F.3d 574,
581–83 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the district court’s order does
not fall within any of the exceptions provided under § 1447, the
order is not appealable.
We therefore grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss
DeHorse’s appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
material before this court and argument will not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3