Christopher Cooper v. Tommy George

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999334399-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00239-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999417144]. Mailed to: Sandra A. George, Tommy George, Evan Brook Bristow, Bobby O'Neil Phipps Jr. and Laura W.H. Teer. [14-1214]

Appeal: 14-1214

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1214

CHRISTOPHER M. COOPER,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TOMMY GEORGE; SANDRA A. GEORGE,
Defendants – Appellants,

DIESEL & ENGINE SERVICE INC.,
Third Party Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
J. Michelle Childs, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00239-JMC)

Submitted:

July 22, 2014

Before NIEMEYER
Circuit Judge.

and

KING,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 18, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tommy George, Sandra A. George, Appellants Pro Se. Evan Brook
Bristow, Bradford Neal Martin, Laura W.H. Teer, BRADFORD, NEAL,
MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, Greenville, South Carolina; Bobby O’Neil
Phipps, Jr., JOHN PRICE LAW FIRM, LLC, Summerville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 14-1214

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1214

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Christopher Cooper filed an action in South
Carolina state court, alleging that Defendants Tommy George and
Sandra A. George were negligent in a car collision.

The Georges

removed the case to the United States District Court for the
District

of

South

Carolina.

Concluding

that

subject

matter

jurisdiction over the complaint was lacking, the district court
accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and issued
an order remanding the action to state court.
for

reconsideration,

Georges

noted

an

which

appeal

the

from

district
both

The Georges moved

court

orders.

denied.
We

The

dismiss

the

appeal.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012), “[a]n order
remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is
not

reviewable

on

appeal

or

otherwise,

except

that

an

order

remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed
pursuant

to

[28

reviewable.”

U.S.C.

The

§]

Supreme

1442
Court

or

1443

has

.

.

construed

.

shall

be

§ 1447(d)

to

insulate from appellate review those remand orders based on the
grounds
procedure

specified
and

a

in

§ 1447(c):

lack

of

a

defect

subject

in

matter

the

removal

jurisdiction.

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996).
In

this

case,

the

district

court

concluded

subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.
3

that

it

lacked

Further, this

Appeal: 14-1214

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

case does not implicate § 1442, concerning cases against federal
officers and agencies, or § 1443, concerning civil rights cases.
Accordingly, the district court’s remand order is not subject to
appellate review.

Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,

519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008).

Moreover, having determined

that subject matter jurisdiction over the action was lacking,
the

district

court

was

without

Georges’ motion to reconsider.

jurisdiction

to

consider

the

In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734-36

(4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly,

we

deny

pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

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

4