Martin Groff Construction Co v. Kevin Betskoff

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-03024-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998792009]. Mailed to: appellant. [11-1868]

Appeal: 11-1868

Document: 15

Date Filed: 02/21/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1868
MARTIN GROFF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN C. BETSKOFF,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-03024-RDB)
Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 21, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin C. Betskoff, Appellant Pro Se.
George Eugene
KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Brown,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1868

Document: 15

Date Filed: 02/21/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kevin C. Betskoff appeals the district court’s order
remanding the underlying action to Maryland state court.

We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
“Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power
of

federal

appellate

courts

to

review

district

court

orders

remanding removed cases to state court.”

Things Remembered,

Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995).

Thus, remand orders

are

generally

“not

U.S.C. § 1447(d).
appellate

reviewable

on

appeal

or

otherwise.”*

28

The Supreme Court has explained that the

restrictions

of

Ҥ 1447(d)

must

be

read

in

pari

materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds
specified

in

§ 1447(c)

[i.e.,

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from
review under § 1447(d).”

Things Remembered, 516 U.S. at 127.

Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district
court’s explicit citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d)
applies to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds
specified in § 1447(c).”

Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d

819, 824-25 (4th Cir. 2000).

*

The statute provides an exception to the appellate ban for
civil rights cases removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (2006).
28
U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006), amended by Removal Clarification Act of
2011, Pub. L. No. 112-51, 125 Stat. 545, 546.

2

Appeal: 11-1868

Document: 15

Date Filed: 02/21/2012

Page: 3 of 3

Here, the district court’s remand was based on its
finding
case.

that

it

lacked

subject

matter

jurisdiction

over

the

Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction to review the

merits of the district court’s order, we dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3