Teresa Lee-Bautista v. John Bautista, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00987-LO-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999756262]. Mailed to: John J. Bautista, Jr.. [15-2176]

Appeal: 15-2176

Doc: 18

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2176

TERESA Y. LEE-BAUTISTA; BRIAN M. HIRSH, ESQ., Respondent
previous attorney of record; CRAIG E. WHITE, ESQ.,
Petitioner Attorney of Record; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES; LOUDOUN JD & R DISTRICT COURT; LOUDOUN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
JOHN J. BAUTISTA, JR., and in re: support and welfare of
L.A.B. (daughter) and E.H.B. (son),
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00987-LO-JFA)

Submitted:

February 9, 2016

Decided:

February 17, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John J. Bautista, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Scott D. Helsel,
Michael Joseph Holleran, WALTON & ADAMS, PC, Reston, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2176

Doc: 18

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John J. Bautista, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders
remanding this action to state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction

and

reconsideration.

dismissing

a

subsequent

motion

for

We affirm.

“An 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

reviewable.”
construed

to

[28

U.S.C.

§]

1443

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012).

§ 1447(d)

to

insulate

from

.

.

.

shall

be

The Supreme Court has

appellate

review

those

remand orders based on the grounds specified in § 1447(c): a
defect in the removal procedure and a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
U.S.

224,

Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551

229-30

(2007).

In

this

case,

the

district

court

concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
complaint and that removal was untimely.
The district court correctly concluded that removal was not
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 because Bautista had neither
alleged nor demonstrated that “the right allegedly denied . . .
arises under a federal law providing for specific civil rights
stated in terms of racial equality.”

Johnson v. Mississippi,

421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, the district court’s remand order is not subject to
2

Appeal: 15-2176

Doc: 18

Filed: 02/17/2016

appellate review.
1001,

1007-08

(4th

Pg: 3 of 3

Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 772 F.3d
Cir.

2014)

(en

banc).

Moreover,

having

determined that subject matter jurisdiction over the action was
lacking,

the

district

court

was

without

entertain Bautista’s motion to reconsider.

jurisdiction

to

In re Lowe, 102 F.3d

731, 734-36 (4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

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

3