Carrie Ward v. Kevin-Patrick O'Rourke, No. 18-1798 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1798 CARRIE WARD; HOWARD N. BIERMAN; JACOB GEESING; PRATIMA LEE; JOSHUA COLEMAN; RONALD R. GOLDSMITH, JR.; LUDEEN MCCARTNEYGREEN; NICHOLAS DERDOCK; ELIZABETH C. JONES; ANDREW J. BRENNER; WAYNE ANTHONY HOLMAN; ANGELA M. DAWKINS; MICHAEL SCOTT COHEN; STEVEN ANDREW TRADER, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. KEVIN-PATRICK O’ROURKE, Appellant, KO HOLDINGS COMPANY LLC, Defendant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Third Party Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01939-RDB) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 28, 2019 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin-Patrick O’Rourke, Appellant Pro Se. Russell J. Pope, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kevin-Patrick O’Rourke attempted to remove the underlying foreclosure proceeding filed in Maryland state court. Upon finding no grounds for federal jurisdiction, the district court remanded the case to state court. O’Rourke appeals. We dismiss his appeal. “Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power of federal appellate courts to review district court orders remanding removed cases to state court.” Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012) (providing that remand orders generally are “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”). Section 1447(d) prohibits this court from reviewing remand orders based on the grounds specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012)—i.e., “(1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, we may not review the district court’s decision to remand the case. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In light of this disposition, we deny O’Rourke’s motions for sanctions, for consideration by a single judge, and for injunctive relief pending appeal. We also deny as moot O’Rourke’s motions to reconsider the order granting Wells Fargo’s motion for an extension of time to file its informal response brief and to remand the case. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4

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.