Filed: Mar. 04, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1747 WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., Plaintiff - Appellee, RICHARD J. KANIA, Substitute Trustee, Party in Interest, v. JAMES ROBERT ELLISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00018-WLO) Submitted: February 25, 2008 Decided: March 4, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismisse
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1747 WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., Plaintiff - Appellee, RICHARD J. KANIA, Substitute Trustee, Party in Interest, v. JAMES ROBERT ELLISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00018-WLO) Submitted: February 25, 2008 Decided: March 4, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1747
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
RICHARD J. KANIA, Substitute Trustee,
Party in Interest,
v.
JAMES ROBERT ELLISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00018-WLO)
Submitted: February 25, 2008 Decided: March 4, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Robert Ellison, Appellant Pro Se. Sean M. Corcoran,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Robert Ellison appeals a district court order
denying his motion to reconsider the order remanding his case to
state court. The court remanded the case to state court because of
a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the district
court did not have jurisdiction to consider Ellison’s motion to
reconsider. See In re Lowe,
102 F.3d 731, 734-35 (4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, because the court lacked jurisdiction to
consider Ellison’s motion to reconsider, 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 -