Hing v. Hing , 308 F. App'x 708 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2292
EILEEN CHU HING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GLENN F. HING,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:08-cv-00210-BO)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eileen Chu Hing, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-appellant Eileen Chu Hing filed a complaint
for divorce in Pennsylvania state court. Hing subsequently
removed the case to the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Concluding that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking, the
district court dismissed and remanded the action back to the
state court. Hing moved for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e), and the district court denied the motion. Hing
filed a timely appeal. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss
the appeal.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006), “[a]n order
remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is
not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order
remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed
pursuant to section 1443 . . . shall be reviewable . . . .” The
Supreme Court has limited § 1447(d) to insulate from appellate
review those remand orders based on the grounds specified in
§ 1447(c): a defect in the removal procedure and a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996). Because the district court
concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under
§ 1441, its remand order is not subject to appellate review.
See Severonickel v. Gaston Reymenants, 115 F.3d 265, 266-69 (4th
Cir. 1997); Mangold v. Analytic Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1442, 1450
2
(4th Cir. 1996); Noel v. McCain, 538 F.2d 633, 635 (4th Cir.
1976). Moreover, having determined that subject matter
jurisdiction over Hing’s case was lacking, the district court
was without jurisdiction to consider Hing’s motion to
reconsider. See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734-35 (4th Cir.
1996). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hing’s
motion for a transcript at government expense. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3