John Garvin v. South Carolina, State of, No. 17-7293 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7293 JOHN GARVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF, Defendant - Appellee. No. 17-7377 JOHN GARVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:17-cv-01605-DCN) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Decided: March 16, 2018 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John Dwayne Garvin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders remanding his state postconviction proceeding to the state court from which it was removed, denying his motion to amend the notice of removal, and denying reconsideration of the remand order. 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 orders. We therefore dismiss the appeals. Garvin’s motions to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief, for a petition in error from judgment order for a writ of error, and for alteration and amendment to petition for removal of state proceeding are denied. 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.
