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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?