Diane Rosenberg v. Dianna Ford , 702 F. App'x 181 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1978
DIANE ROSENBERG; MARK MEYER; JOHN A. ANSELL, III; KENNETH
SAVITZ; JENNIFER ROCHINO; CAROLINE FIELDS,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
DIANNA FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:17-cv-01930-TDC)
Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 20, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dianna Ford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dianna Ford has noted an appeal from the district court’s order remanding a
removed foreclosure action to Maryland state court. “[A] district court may remand a
case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
[(2012)], and such an order is not reviewable, id. § 1447(d).” Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64,
66-67 (4th Cir. 2016). The district court remanded Ford’s removed action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, explaining that the complaint did not present a federal
question and that diversity of citizenship was lacking. Because the district court
remanded the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we lack jurisdiction to review
its order. Id. Accordingly, we 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