55, 56 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (‘Where a case has been improperly removed and the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must remand the case sua sponte to the state court where it originated.... ”); Ramirez v. Smith, No. CV 88-834, 1988 WL 36966, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.8, 1988) (remanding case sua sponte where it was “clear from the face of the removal petition that [the] case was removed improperly”), aff'd mem. 867 F.2d 1424 (2d Cir.1988); Worthy v. Schering Corp., 607 F.Supp. 653, 657 (E.D.N.Y.1985) (remanding case to state court sua sponte for lack of removal jurisdiction); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); cf, e.g., Pozsga, 158 F.R.D. at 437 (<HOLDING>). Having reviewed the submission of the
holding that the district court cannot remand sua sponte for defects in removal procedure holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal holding that there should be a sua sponte remand for want of removal jurisdiction where the premise for removal of the state court proceeding was the state courts alleged violation of fourteenth amendment due process rights holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand holding that the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal