Eileen Hing v. Glenn Hing, No. 08-2292 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2292 EILEEN CHU HING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GLENN F. HING, Defendant - Appellee.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 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: January 21, 2009 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 removed the Concluding in Pennsylvania case that to the state Eastern subject matter court. District Hing of jurisdiction subsequently North was Carolina. 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. filed a timely appeal. Hing 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 subject matter jurisdiction. 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 concluded that it removal and a lack of Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., (1996). lacked procedure Because subject matter the district court 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 reconsider. 1996). jurisdiction to consider Hing s motion to See In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734-35 (4th Cir. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hing s motion for a transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
