John Driscoll, III v. Sandra Forquer, No. 16-1879 (4th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1879 JOHN E. DRISCOLL, III; LAURA D. HARRIS; DANIEL J. PESACHOWITZ; DEENA L. REYNOLDS, Substitute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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Sandra S. Forquer seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this removed action to the state court for lack of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.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) 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). subject matter Here, the remand was based on lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, this jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. deny Forquer leave to proceed in forma Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal. court lacks We therefore pauperis and grant 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

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.