The Cameron v. Roy Sudduth, No. 11-1511 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1511 THE CAMERON, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROY SUDDUTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cv-00560-AW) Submitted: December 5, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Sudduth, Appellant Pro Se. BERBERT, SCHWARTZ & GILDAY, Appellee. Douglas Morton Bregman, BREGMAN, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff The Cameron filed an eviction action in Maryland state court, alleging that Defendant Roy Sudduth was a holdover tenant. Sudduth removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Concluding that subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint was lacking, the district court issued an order remanding the action to state court. Sudduth moved for reconsideration, and court issued an order denying the motion. appeal from both orders. the district Sudduth noted an 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 reviewable. [28 The U.S.C. §] 1443 Supreme Court [(2006)] . . . shall has limited § 1447(d) be to insulate from appellate review those remand orders based on the grounds specified procedure and a in § 1447(c): lack of a defect subject in matter the removal jurisdiction. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996). In this case, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Further, this case the does court s not remand implicate order is § 1443. not Accordingly, subject 2 to appellate district review. Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008). Moreover, having determined that subject matter jurisdiction over the action was lacking, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Sudduth s motion to reconsider. In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734-36 (4th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we deny pauperis and dismiss the appeal. leave to proceed in forma 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 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.
