Health Care v. Istvan ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                                             Filed:   January 14, 2000
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-2244
    (CA-99-2304-PJM)
    Health Care and Retirement Corporation, etc.,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    Erma J. Istvan,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    O R D E R
    The court amends its opinion filed December 21, 1999, as
    follows:
    On the cover sheet, section 3 -- the spelling of Appellant’s
    name is corrected to read “Erma J. Istvan.”
    For the Court - By Direction
    /s/ Patricia S. Connor
    Clerk
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-2244
    HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF
    AMERICA, d/b/a HCR-Manor Care Health Services,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ERMA J. ISTVAN,
    Defendant - Appellant,
    and
    DELLA SHUMAKER, HCR-Manor Care Health Services,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
    99-2304-PJM)
    Submitted:   December 16, 1999         Decided:     December 21, 1999
    Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
    cuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    2
    Irma J. Istvan, Appellant Pro Se. John M. G. Murphy, OBER, KALER,
    GRIMES & SHRIVER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Erma Istvan appeals the district court’s order (1) finding
    that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action raising
    the state law claims of breach of contract, quantum meruit, and
    negligence; and (2) remanding the case to the Maryland state court
    from which it was improperly removed.   Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1447
    (d)
    19994), an order remanding a case to the state court from which it
    was removed is not reviewable on appeal except in circumstances not
    applicable here.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of
    jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    us and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-2244

Filed Date: 1/14/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014