John E. Driscoll, Iii v. Sandra S. Forquer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1879
JOHN E. DRISCOLL, III; LAURA D. HARRIS; DANIEL J. PESACHOWITZ;
DEENA L. REYNOLDS, Substitute Trustee,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
SANDRA S. FORQUER,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
BARBARA S. FORQUER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:16-cv-02555-ELH)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sandra S. Forquer, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Brooks Riley,
TREANOR, POPE & HUGHES, PA, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Sandra S. Forquer seeks to appeal the district court’s order
remanding this removed action to the state court for lack of
jurisdiction. With certain exceptions not applicable here, “[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)
(2012). The Supreme Court has limited the scope of § 1447(d) to
prohibiting appellate review of remand orders based on a defect in
the removal procedure or lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711–12 (1996); see
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012). Here, the remand was based on lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court lacks
jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. We therefore
deny Forquer leave to proceed in forma pauperis and grant
Appellees’ motion to 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

-- 3 of 3 --