Sharon Chabassole v. Robert Wazney, No. 20-7567 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-7567 SHARON RENEE CHABASSOLE, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY, Defendant - Appellant. No. 20-7714 SHARON RENEE CHABASSOLE, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-02399-HMH) Submitted: June 29, 2021 Decided: July 1, 2021 Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Wazney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Robert William Wazney seeks to appeal from the district court’s orders: (1) denying his “motion to appeal” from the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying his motion for stay, and (2) adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding the underlying domestic proceeding back to state court. We dismiss the appeals. Remand orders are generally “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The Supreme Court has explained that the appellate restrictions of “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) [i.e., lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district court’s explicit citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d) applies to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds specified in § 1447(c).” Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824-25 (4th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court remanded the case to the state court after finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court’s orders. We deny Wazney’s motion for oral argument via teleconference and 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 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.
