Richard Tallant v. Elizabeth Tallant ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2234
PATRICIA RICHARD; RICHARD F. TALLANT,
Petitioners - Appellees,
v.
ELIZABETH S. TALLANT,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00129-KDB-DCK)
Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth S. Tallant, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmy Ray Summerlin, Jr., YOUNG, MORPHIS,
BACH & TAYLOR, L.L.P., Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth S. Tallant (“Tallant”) seeks to appeal the district court’s October 2020
order granting Richard Tallant and Patricia Richard’s (“Petitioners”) motion to remand the
case to the state court from which it was removed on the ground that removal was untimely
under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and denying Tallant’s pending motions as moot. Tallant also
seeks to appeal the district court’s September 2020 order denying in part her motion to
electronically file documents.
Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was
removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The Supreme
Court has instructed that Ҥ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.]
§ 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from
review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995).
Thus, § 1447(d)’s proscription against review applies only to remand orders “based on (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.” Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Petitioners moved to remand within 30 days of Tallant’s notice of removal and the
district court remanded on the basis that removal was untimely. Under the cited authorities,
2
we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. ∗ Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of 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
∗
Because the district court’s remand order is unreviewable and the case is no longer
before the district court, we dismiss as moot Tallant’s appeal of the intermediary order
denying in part her motion to electronically file documents. See Catawba Riverkeeper
Found. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 843 F.3d 583, 588 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[A] case is moot when
our resolution of an issue could not possibly have any practical effect on the outcome of
the matter.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
3