
    Kristine D. BROWN; William M. Savage; Gregory N. Britto; Lila Z. Stitely; Brett A. Callahan, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Alphonso MATTHEWS; Zekiyya Matthews, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 16-1660
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 18, 2016
    Decided: November 23, 2016
    Alphonso Matthews, Zekiyya Matthews, Appellants Pro Se. William Mapp Savage, SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Alphonso Matthews and Ze-kiyya Matthews were named as defendants in a foreclosure action in Maryland state court. After they removed the action to federal court, the district court remanded the case sua sponte to state court. Appellants now seek to appeal the district court’s remand order.

We are obliged to consider sua sponte oui’ jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). Because we construe the district court’s remand order as predicating remand on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012), we conclude the district court’s order is not reviewable by this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 67 (4th Cir. 2016); see also E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574, 579 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that § 1447(d) prohibits review of all remand orders pursuant to § 1447(c) “regardless of whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by us” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter 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  