Josephat Mua v. California Casualty Indemnity , 685 F. App'x 279 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2264
JOSEPHAT MUA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE; MARSDEN &
SELEDEE; THE O'NEAL LAW FIRM, LLP; THATCHER LAW FIRM;
MITCHELL I. BATT, (Individual capacity); BRYAN CHAPMAN; MR. RAOUF
ABDULLAH, (Individual capacity); ROBERT E. CAPPELL; C. SUKARI
HARDNETT, (Individual capacity); BRADFORD ASSOCIATES; MARYLAND
STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISORY &
ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL; SHANI K. WHISONANT; O'MALLEY, MILES,
NYLEN & GILMORE, P.A.; MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (8:16-cv-03267-ELH)
Submitted: April 20, 2017 Decided: April 24, 2017
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV,
SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Josephat Mua seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding the underlying
action to state court. Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n order remanding a
case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or
otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); see E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d
574, 579-83 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the district court’s order does not fall within the
exceptions provided by § 1447, the order is not appealable.
Accordingly, we grant California Casualty Indemnity Exchange’s motion to
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but deny its motions for attorney’s fees and
for reconsideration of our order granting Mua extensions of time. We grant Mua’s
motions to exceed the length limitations for his appellate filings and for leave to file a
supplemental brief, but deny Mua’s motion to suspend these proceedings. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the material before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3