Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2028 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ELOIS C. BAXTER, Defendant - Appellant, and THE SUMMIT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through its agency, The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-01447-MBS) Submi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2028 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ELOIS C. BAXTER, Defendant - Appellant, and THE SUMMIT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through its agency, The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-01447-MBS) Submit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2028
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELOIS C. BAXTER,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
THE SUMMIT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.; THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, acting by and through its agency, The Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-01447-MBS)
Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elois C. Baxter, Appellant Pro Se. Travis Emil Menk, BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Elois C. Baxter seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and remanding this removed action to state court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. “[A] district court may remand a case . . . for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction at any time, and such an order is not reviewable.” Doe v. Blair,
819
F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d) (2012).
Because we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order, we dismiss this appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3