Rodney Burr v. Douglas Gansler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-03736-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999118343]. Mailed to: Burr. [13-1147]

Appeal: 13-1147

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/30/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1147

RODNEY L. BURR,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS F. GANSLER; MARCUS L. BROWN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-03736-CCB)

Submitted:

May 16, 2013

Decided:

May 30, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Rodney L. Burr, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1147

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/30/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rodney
remanding

the

L.

Burr

State’s

appeals

the

prosecution

of

district
Burr

court’s
for

a

order

traffic

violation to state court and dismissing Burr’s federal complaint
alleging that the state regulation requiring that he wear a seat
belt while driving violates the Constitution.

As this court may

not ordinarily review a district court’s remand order by reason
of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006), and we reject Burr’s argument
that

there

was

supplemental

jurisdiction

over

the

state

prosecution by virtue of his complaint, we dismiss Burr’s appeal
to the extent he seeks review of that portion of the order.

See

Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000);
see also Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborer Vacation
Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (“[A] federal court
does not have original jurisdiction over a case in which the
complaint presents a state-law cause of action, but also asserts
that federal law deprives the defendant of a defense he may
raise . . . or that a federal defense the defendant may raise is
not sufficient to defeat the claim.”) (citation omitted).
With respect to Burr’s complaint, we agree with the
district court that it is without merit and therefore affirm the
portion of the court’s order dismissing the complaint.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately
2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 13-1147

Doc: 11

before this

court

Filed: 05/30/2013

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3