Attorney Grievance Commission v. Muhammad

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1084
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND,
Petitioner - Appellee,
versus
PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05-
cv-03144-MJG)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: October 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Patrick J. Muhammad, LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK MUHAMMAD, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General
of Maryland, Gary W. Kuc, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patrick J. Muhammad appeals the district court’s order
remanding the attorney disciplinary petition filed against him by
the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission (“AGC”) to the Maryland
Court of Appeals. The district court granted the AGC’s motion to
remand the petition after finding no basis for removal under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442, or 1443 (2000).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000), “[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 section 1443 . . . shall be reviewable . . . .” The
Supreme Court has limited § 1447(d) to insulate from appellate
review only those remand orders based on the grounds specified in
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2000): 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) (instructing that § 1447(c)
and (d) must be read in conjunction with one another). Thus,
because the district court concluded it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction under §§ 1441 and 1442, that portion of the remand
order is not subject to appellate review. Severonickel v. Gaston
Reymenants, 115 F.3d 265, 266-69 (4th Cir. 1997); Mangold v.
Analytic Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1442, 1450 (4th Cir. 1996); Noel v.
McCain, 538 F.2d 633, 635 (4th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, to the
- 2 -
extent Muhammad challenges the district court’s jurisdictional
determination under §§ 1441 and 1442, his appeal is dismissed.
The district court’s conclusion that removal was also
improper pursuant to § 1443 is reviewable, however. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(d). After a thorough review of the record and the district
court’s order, we find no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm
this portion of the district court’s order on the reasoning of the
district court. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v.
Muhammad, No. 1:05-cv-03144-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2006). 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
- 3 -