Summary
dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction when appellant sought review of district court's order remanding action to state court because appellant's notice of removal was untimely
Summary of this case from Brown v. KearseOpinion
No. 07-1006.
Submitted: February 28, 2007.
Decided: March 21, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:06-cv-02989-RDB).
James Riffin, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Dean Snyder, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Jeffrey A. Barmach, Baltimore County Office of Law, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
James Riffin appeals a district court order dismissing the action and remanding it to state court because Riffin's notice of removal was untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
"An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The Supreme Court has made clear that a remand order based on untimely removal is not appealable. Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 126-28, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995); see also Wilkins v. Rogers, 581 F.2d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 1978) (a district court's order finding that the notice of removal is not timely filed is not reviewable on appeal).
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.