Dinesh Trinidade v. Federal National Mortgage, No. 12-1616 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1616 DINESH B. TRINIDADE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00012-JPB-DJJ) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 20, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dinesh B. Trinidade, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Robert Arthur, SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Charleston, West Virginia; Fabio Crichigno, Sarah A. Crichigno, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association filed an unlawful seeking to detainer evict action Defendant in West Dinesh Virginia B. state Trinidade. court, Trinidade removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Concluding that removal was improper because the notice of removal was not timely filed, the district court issued an order remanding Trinidade seeks to appeal. * court. the case to state 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 . . . [28 reviewable. The U.S.C. Supreme §] 1443 Court [(2006)] . . . shall has limited § 1447(d) be to insulate from appellate review those remand orders based on the grounds specified in § 1447(c): a defect in procedure or a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. the removal Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996). In this case, the district court concluded that there was a defect in * The Appellant s brief was filed by Sandra B. Trinidade, Trinidade s personal representative. No party, however, has moved for the substitution of parties under Fed. R. App. P. 43(a). 2 the removal procedure timely filed. because the notice of removal was not See Cades v. H & R Block, Inc., 43 F.3d 869, 873 (4th Cir. 1994) ( An untimely removal is a defect in removal procedure. ). Further, this case does not implicate § 1443. Accordingly, the district court s remand order is not subject to appellate review. Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before We dispense with contentions 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.
