Filed: Aug. 14, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1635 FEDERATED CAPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Federated Financial Corporation of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN C. BETSKOFF, d/b/a Keymar Financial SVC, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00538-CCB) Submitted: August 5, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Di
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1635 FEDERATED CAPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Federated Financial Corporation of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN C. BETSKOFF, d/b/a Keymar Financial SVC, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00538-CCB) Submitted: August 5, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1635
FEDERATED CAPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Federated Financial
Corporation of America,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN C. BETSKOFF, d/b/a Keymar Financial SVC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00538-CCB)
Submitted: August 5, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin C. Betskoff, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Saunders Litman,
LITMAN LAW OFFICE, Lansdale, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin C. Betskoff seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion to reconsider its order remanding his
case to Utah state court, from which Betskoff had attempted to
remove it. But we lack jurisdiction to consider such a claim
because, 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.A. § 1447(d)
(West Supp. 2013); see also E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc.,
____ F.3d ,
2013 WL 3487397, at *6 (4th Cir. July 12, 2013)
(No. 12-2207).
We therefore dismiss Betskoff’s appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the material before this court and
argument will not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2