Rodney Burr v. Douglas Gansler

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1147
RODNEY L. BURR,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS F. GANSLER; MARCUS L. BROWN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-03736-CCB)
Submitted: May 16, 2013 Decided: May 30, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Rodney L. Burr, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney L. Burr appeals the district court’s order
remanding the State’s prosecution of Burr for a traffic
violation to state court and dismissing Burr’s federal complaint
alleging that the state regulation requiring that he wear a seat
belt while driving violates the Constitution. As this court may
not ordinarily review a district court’s remand order by reason
of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006), and we reject Burr’s argument
that there was supplemental jurisdiction over the state
prosecution by virtue of his complaint, we dismiss Burr’s appeal
to the extent he seeks review of that portion of the order. See
Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000);
see also Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborer Vacation
Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (“[A] federal court
does not have original jurisdiction over a case in which the
complaint presents a state-law cause of action, but also asserts
that federal law deprives the defendant of a defense he may
raise . . . or that a federal defense the defendant may raise is
not sufficient to defeat the claim.”) (citation omitted).
With respect to Burr’s complaint, we agree with the
district court that it is without merit and therefore affirm the
portion of the court’s order dismissing the complaint.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3