Pikkert v. Pastene

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided May 20, 2003

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2003-05-20

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2004

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1447

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-05-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

¶2Alexander Pastene seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order remanding his civil action to state court. The magistrate judge’s remand order is not reviewable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

¶3DISMISSED.