Filed: Sep. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1478 HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK; JOSHUA R. PINYAN, Substitute Trustee; GRADY I. INGLE, Substitute Trustee; ELIZABETH B. ELLS, Substitute Trustee, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. DAVID M. MATTIS, Defendant - Appellant, and MARGARET A. MATTIS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00030-BO) Submitted: September 25, 2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1478 HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK; JOSHUA R. PINYAN, Substitute Trustee; GRADY I. INGLE, Substitute Trustee; ELIZABETH B. ELLS, Substitute Trustee, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. DAVID M. MATTIS, Defendant - Appellant, and MARGARET A. MATTIS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00030-BO) Submitted: September 25, 20..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1478
HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK; JOSHUA R. PINYAN, Substitute
Trustee; GRADY I. INGLE, Substitute Trustee; ELIZABETH B.
ELLS, Substitute Trustee,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
DAVID M. MATTIS,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
MARGARET A. MATTIS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00030-BO)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Mattis, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Kenneth Purser,
SHAPIRO & INGLE LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David M. Mattis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order remanding the underlying foreclosure 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 by § 1447, the
order is not appealable. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the material
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2