Filed: Jan. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2074 BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NEHEMIAH BRYANT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:17-cv-01359-DCN) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nehemiah
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2074 BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NEHEMIAH BRYANT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:17-cv-01359-DCN) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nehemiah ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2074
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NEHEMIAH BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:17-cv-01359-DCN)
Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nehemiah Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Edward Grimsley, GRIMSLEY LAW
FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina; Christina Rampey Hunoval, HUNOVAL LAW FIRM
PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jonathan McKey Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM,
LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nehemiah Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and remanding this removed action to the state court. With
certain 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.
§ 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has limited the scope of § 1447(d) to prohibiting
appellate review of remand orders based on a defect in the removal procedure or lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
517 U.S. 706, 711–12
(1996); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012). Here, the remand was based on lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and defects in the removal procedure. Accordingly, this court lacks
jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. We therefore dismiss the 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
2