Carrie Ward v. Kevin-Patrick O'Rourke ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1798
CARRIE WARD; HOWARD N. BIERMAN; JACOB GEESING; PRATIMA LEE;
JOSHUA COLEMAN; RONALD R. GOLDSMITH, JR.; LUDEEN MCCARTNEY-
GREEN; NICHOLAS DERDOCK; ELIZABETH C. JONES; ANDREW J. BRENNER;
WAYNE ANTHONY HOLMAN; ANGELA M. DAWKINS; MICHAEL SCOTT
COHEN; STEVEN ANDREW TRADER,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
KEVIN-PATRICK O’ROURKE,
Appellant,
KO HOLDINGS COMPANY LLC,
Defendant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Third Party Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01939-RDB)
Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 28, 2019
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin-Patrick O’Rourke, Appellant Pro Se. Russell J. Pope, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin-Patrick O’Rourke attempted to remove the underlying foreclosure
proceeding filed in Maryland state court. Upon finding no grounds for federal
jurisdiction, the district court remanded the case to state court. O’Rourke appeals. We
dismiss his appeal.
“Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power of federal appellate courts to
review district court orders remanding removed cases to state court.” Doe v. Blair, 819
F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)
(2012) (providing that remand orders generally are “not reviewable on appeal or
otherwise”). Section 1447(d) prohibits this court from reviewing remand orders based on
the grounds specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012)—i.e., “(1) a district court’s lack of
subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter
jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of
removal was filed.” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th
Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court determined that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, we may not review the
district court’s decision to remand the case.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In light of this disposition, we deny
O’Rourke’s motions for sanctions, for consideration by a single judge, and for injunctive
relief pending appeal. We also deny as moot O’Rourke’s motions to reconsider the order
granting Wells Fargo’s motion for an extension of time to file its informal response brief
and to remand the case. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4