Corporal Derreck Clagett v. Naja Zahir, No. 19-1517 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1517 CORPORAL DERRECK CLAGETT, #3163, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAJA TALIBAH ZAHIR, a/k/a Naja Zahir El, Defendant - Appellant. No. 19-1518 STATE OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAJA TALIBAH ZAHIR, Defendant - Appellant. No. 19-1519 STATE OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAJA TALIBAH ZAHIR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore and Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:19-cv-01252-PX; 1:19-cv-01253-PX; 8:19-cv-01254-PX) Submitted: July 18, 2019 Decided: July 22, 2019 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Naja Talibah Zahir, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Naja T. Zahir appeals the district court’s order denying her requests to remove state criminal and traffic charges to federal court and denying her requests for an emergency injunction. “Generally, a district court’s order remanding a removed case to a state court is not appealable.” Dominion Energy, Inc. v. City of Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys., __ F.3d __, __, No. 18-1844, 2019 WL 2707584, at *4 (4th Cir. June 28, 2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012)). And on appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s briefs. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Zahir’s informal briefs do not challenge the district court’s dispositive rulings regarding her claims for injunctive relief, Zahir has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to the remand claims and affirm the district court’s judgment as to the injunction claims. 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 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.
