Great Bay Condominium Owners Association, Inc. v. 6101 GARDENIA LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1649
GREAT BAY CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
6101 GARDENIA LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company,
Defendant,
v.
LATONYA M. BROOKS,
Movant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-00658-PJM)
Submitted: January 26, 2011 Decided: February 10, 2011
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
LaTonya M. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Burns,
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
LaTonya Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s
order remanding this case to the Superior Court of the U.S.
Virgin Islands, from which it was removed. We dismiss the
appeal.
Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State
court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or
otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). The Supreme Court has
instructed that Ҥ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28
U.S.C.] § 1447(c) [(2006)], so that only remands based on
grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under
§ 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124,
127 (1995). Thus:
§ 1447(d) bars . . . review of a district court’s
remand order only if the order was issued under
§ 1447(c) and invoked the grounds specified therein,
. . . either (1) that the district court granted a
timely filed motion raising a defect in removal
procedure or (2) that it noticed a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196
(4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is
reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the
order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United
States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In this case, the district court remanded the action
because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited
authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand
order, and we dismiss the appeal. 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 of 3 --