Kristine Brown v. Alphonso Matthews, No. 16-1660 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1660 KRISTINE D. BROWN; WILLIAM M. SAVAGE; GREGORY N. BRITTO; LILA Z. STITELY; BRETT A. CALLAHAN, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. ALPHONSO MATTHEWS; ZEKIYYA MATTHEWS, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-01333-RWT) Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alphonso Matthews, Zekiyya Matthews, Appellants Pro Se. William Mapp Savage, SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellants Alphonso Matthews and Zekiyya Matthews were named as defendants in a foreclosure action in Maryland state court. After they removed the action to federal court, the district court remanded the case sua sponte to state court. Appellants now seek to appeal the district court’s remand order. We are obliged to consider sua sponte our jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). Because we construe the district court’s remand order as predicating remand on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012), we conclude the district court’s order is not reviewable by this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 67 (4th Cir. 2016); see also E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, prohibits 579 (4th review of “regardless erroneous of by Cir. all whether us” 2013) remand or not (brackets (recognizing orders that and that pursuant order internal to might § 1447(d) § 1447(c) be quotation deemed marks omitted)). Accordingly, we matter jurisdiction. facts and legal dismiss the appeal for lack of subject We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 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.