Filed: Nov. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff's "Motion to Confirm Order." [Doc. 104]. By the present motion, the Plaintiff requests "confirmation of stated facts regarding" the Order [Doc. 102] entered by this Court on July 11, 2017, remanding this action to the McDowell County Superior Court. [Doc. 104]. The Plaintiff's motion must be denied. With the remand of this action to state court, this Court was "divested . . . of all juris
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff's "Motion to Confirm Order." [Doc. 104]. By the present motion, the Plaintiff requests "confirmation of stated facts regarding" the Order [Doc. 102] entered by this Court on July 11, 2017, remanding this action to the McDowell County Superior Court. [Doc. 104]. The Plaintiff's motion must be denied. With the remand of this action to state court, this Court was "divested . . . of all jurisd..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff's "Motion to Confirm Order." [Doc. 104].
By the present motion, the Plaintiff requests "confirmation of stated facts regarding" the Order [Doc. 102] entered by this Court on July 11, 2017, remanding this action to the McDowell County Superior Court. [Doc. 104].
The Plaintiff's motion must be denied. With the remand of this action to state court, this Court was "divested . . . of all jurisdiction in this case" and is therefore "precluded . . . from entertaining any further proceedings of any character. . . ." In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 735 (4th Cir. 1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's motion.
Further, the Plaintiff by this motion appears to seek a ruling from this Court regarding the operative nature of her state court pleadings and the sufficiency of process on the Defendants in the state court case. The Court is not authorized to give advisory opinions regarding state court proceedings. See Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969).
For all these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff's "Motion to Confirm Order" [Doc. 104] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
