Edward Cohn v. John Harding, No. 17-2434 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2434 EDWARD S. COHN; STEPHEN N. GOLDBERG, Substitute Trustee; RICHARD E. SOLOMON, Substitute Trustee; RICHARD J. ROGERS, Substitute Trustee; RANDALL J. ROLLS, Substitute Trustee, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. JOHN H. HARDING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:17-cv-03236-ELH) Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Harding, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John H. Harding seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this foreclosure proceeding to the Maryland state court from which it was removed. 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) (2012). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), 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) is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of . . . § 1447(c), based on (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. Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks 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). The district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 2
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.
