Martin Groff Construction Company, Incorporated v. Kevin C. Betskoff

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1868
MARTIN GROFF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN C. BETSKOFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-03024-RDB)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 21, 2012
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin C. Betskoff, Appellant Pro Se. George Eugene Brown,
KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin C. Betskoff appeals the district court’s order
remanding the underlying action to Maryland state court. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
“Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power
of federal appellate courts to review district court orders
remanding removed cases to state court.” Things Remembered,
Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Thus, remand orders
are generally “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.”* 28
U.S.C. § 1447(d). The Supreme Court has explained that the
appellate restrictions of Ҥ 1447(d) must be read in pari
materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds
specified in § 1447(c) [i.e., lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from
review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, 516 U.S. at 127.
Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district
court’s explicit citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d)
applies to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds
specified in § 1447(c).” Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d
819, 824-25 (4th Cir. 2000).
* The statute provides an exception to the appellate ban for
civil rights cases removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (2006). 28
U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006), amended by Removal Clarification Act of
2011, Pub. L. No. 112-51, 125 Stat. 545, 546.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Here, the district court’s remand was based on its
finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
case. Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction to review the
merits of the district court’s order, we dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --