JOSEPHAT MUA v. CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE MARSDEN SELEDEE THE NEAL LAW FIRM LLP THATCHER LAW FIRM MITCHELL BATT BRYAN CHAPMAN MR RAOUF ABDULLAH ROBERT CAPPELL SUKARI HARDNETT BRADFORD ASSOCIATES MARYLAND STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISORY ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL SHANI WHISONANT MALLEY MILES NYLEN GILMORE MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

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.

No. 16-2264

Decided: April 24, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

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

PER CURIAM: