Empirian Village of MD v. Samuel Olekanma, No. 18-1636 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1636 EMPIRIAN VILLAGE OF MARYLAND, LLC, d/b/a Franklin Park at Greenbelt Station, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL OLEKANMA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:18-cv-01298-TDC) Submitted: October 18, 2018 Decided: October 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senor Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel I. Olekanma, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellant Samuel Olekanma was named as the defendant in a breach of contract action filed in Maryland state court. After Olekanma removed the action to federal court, the district court ordered him to show cause why removal was proper. Upon receiving Olekanma’s response, the court remanded the case to state court. Olekanma now seeks 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 the district court’s remand order is predicated on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012), we conclude that 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, 579 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that § 1447(d) prohibits review of all remand orders pursuant to § 1447(c) “regardless of whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by us” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 2