USCA4 Appeal: 24-1837 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/13/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1837

ANGELA IVEY THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND; GLADYS M. WEATHERSPOON; THOMAS W. HODGE; JOHN A. ANSELL; BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:24-cv-00980-PX)

Submitted: October 23, 2024 Decided: December 13, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Ivey Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1837 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/13/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Angela Ivey Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Appellees’

motion to remand an action to state court based on a defect in the removal proceedings.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Pursuant to

(a), a defendant may remove any civil action brought

in a state court over which a federal district court has original jurisdiction to the district

court. A defendant removing an action to federal court must file a notice of removal in the

district court “within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or

otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading,” or “within 30 days after the service of

summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has been filed in court and is not

required to be served on the defendant, whichever is shorter.”

(b)(1).

After an action has been removed, a party may file a motion to remand the case to the state

court based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in the removal proceedings.

(c). “An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was

removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise,” with certain exceptions not relevant

here.

(d). However, § 1447(d) only bars appellate review of a remand

order where the order was based on “a timely raised defect in removal procedure or on a

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,

(1995).

Here, within 30 days of Thomas’ notice of removal, Appellees sought remand to the

state court in part because Thomas’ notice of removal was untimely. The district court

granted the motion to remand on that basis. Because the district court’s order was based

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1837 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/13/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

on “a timely raised defect in the removal procedure,” we lack jurisdiction to review the

order under § 1447(d). Bartels ex. rel Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Grp. LLC,

(4th Cir. 2018).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3