Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harbison Station v. Cordero, 97-1989 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1989 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jan. 06, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1989 HARBISON STATION APARTMENTS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENISE CORDERO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1841-3-17BD) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Denise Cordero,
More
                           UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 97-1989



HARBISON STATION APARTMENTS,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

         versus


DENISE CORDERO,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-97-1841-3-17BD)


Submitted:   December 18, 1997           Decided:   January 6, 1998


Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Denise Cordero, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Elford Carpenter, Jr.,
RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, Columbia, South Caro-
lina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          Appellant appeals the district court's order remanding

this case to the state court. A district court order remanding a

case to the state court from which it was removed generally is not

appealable. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1447(d) (1994); Thermtron Prods., Inc. v.
Hermansdorfer, 
423 U.S. 336
, 342 (1976); Nutter v. Monongahela

Power Co., 
4 F.3d 319
, 321 (4th Cir. 1993). Because none of the

exceptions apply here, we dismiss the appeal from the remand order.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.




                                                         DISMISSED




                                2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer