Christopher M. Cooper v. Tommy George; Sandra A. George

UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: August 18, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
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. The Georges moved
for reconsideration, which the district court denied. The
Georges noted an appeal from both orders. We 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 U.S.C. §] 1442 or 1443 . . . shall be
reviewable.” The Supreme Court has construed § 1447(d) to
insulate from 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.
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996).
In this case, the district court concluded that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Further, this

-- 3 of 4 --

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 jurisdiction to consider the
Georges’ motion to reconsider. In re Lowe, 102 F.3d 731, 734-36
(4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and 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

-- 4 of 4 --