Josephat Mua v. California Casualty Indemnity, No. 16-2263 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2263 JOSEPHAT MUA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE; MARSDEN &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; C. SUKARI HARDNETT, Individual Capacity; BRADFORD ASSOCIATES; MARYLAND STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISORY & ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL; MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:16-cv-03247-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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Joel D. Seledee, MARSDEN & SELEDEE, LLC, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Josephat Mua seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding the underlying action to state court.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 motions 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
