Bette Jones v. NC Dept of Transportation

Filing

Case reopened upon grant of rehearing. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00170-GCM. [15-2258]

Appeal: 15-2258

Doc: 42

Filed: 09/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2258

BETTE J.T. JONES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-00170-GCM)

Submitted:

August 26, 2016

Decided:

September 6, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Bette J.T. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Andrew Sack, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2258

Doc: 42

Filed: 09/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bette

J.T.

Jones

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

denying her notice of removal and remanding her civil action to
state court for further proceedings and denying her motions for
reconsideration.
Jones

filed

a

After we dismissed her appeal as untimely,
petition

for

rehearing

providing

additional

information on the timeliness of the notices of appeal.

We

grant the petition for rehearing, thus vacating our previous
order dismissing as untimely, and dismiss in part and affirm in
part the district court’s orders denying the notice of removal
and remanding the case to state court and denying Jones’ motions
for reconsideration.
With certain exceptions, “[a]n order remanding a case to
the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on
appeal or otherwise.”
Court

has

appellate
removal

limited
review

procedure

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012).

the

of

scope

remand

or

lack

of

§

orders
of

1447(d)
based

subject

on

to
a

matter

The Supreme
prohibiting

defect

in

the

jurisdiction.

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711–12 (1996);
see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012).

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1443

(2012) authorizes removal from state court of “civil actions ...
[a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the
courts of such State a right under any law providing for the

2

Appeal: 15-2258

Doc: 42

Filed: 09/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all
persons within the jurisdiction thereof.”
To

the

extent

the

civil

rights

28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).

exception

applies

here,

based on Jones’ allegations under Title VII, we affirm the order
based on the reasoning of the district court.

Jones v. North

Carolina Dep’t of Transp., No. 3:15-cv-00170-GCM (W.D.N.C. Aug.
6

&

Sept. 10,

2015).

The

remainder

of

the

appeal

must

be

dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the
district court’s order.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

We therefore

dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3