Filed: Aug. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1376 JASON A. MARR, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OLIVIA M. SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00057-FMS) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Olivia M.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1376 JASON A. MARR, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OLIVIA M. SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00057-FMS) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Olivia M. S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1376 JASON A. MARR, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OLIVIA M. SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00057-FMS) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Olivia M. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Melinda Faith Seemar, STALLINGS & BISCHOFF, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Olivia M. Smith appeals the district court’s order remanding the civil action against her to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court’s remand order is not reviewable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 -
