US Bank National Association v. Tracie Green, No. 23-1176 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1176 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRACIE L. GREEN, a/k/a Tracie Ledora Mitchem-Green, Defendant - Appellant, and CARDINAL PINES HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.; PALMETTO CITIZENS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (3:22-cv-04215-SAL) Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023 Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracie L. Green, Appellant Pro Se. John S. Kay, HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Tracie L. Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and remanding Appellee’s action against her to the state court from which it was removed. The district court remanded the case after determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. “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) (providing that remand orders generally are “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”). Section 1447(d) prohibits us from reviewing remand orders based on the grounds specified in § 1447(c), including “a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). We look to the substance of a remand order to determine whether it was issued under § 1447(c). Doe, 819 F.3d at 67. Here, the district court remanded the case after having expressly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We are therefore without jurisdiction to review the remand order. See id. at 66. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Green’s motion to seal documents. 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.
