Filed: May 03, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1016 TIMI ANN CONOVER, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ROY SUDDATH, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-03299-AW) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Suddath, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions ar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1016 TIMI ANN CONOVER, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ROY SUDDATH, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-03299-AW) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Suddath, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1016
TIMI ANN CONOVER,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROY SUDDATH,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:10-cv-03299-AW)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy Suddath, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roy Suddath appeals the district court’s orders
remanding this case back to state court and denying
reconsideration. Because the remand order was based on lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, the district court’s order is not
subject to review. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006); Things
Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,
516 U.S. 124, 127-28 (1995).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We further deny Suddath’s motion to seal. 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