UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6478
CHARLES CECIL THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL W. BUTLER; GERALD W. JOHNSON; OFFICE
OF THE SHERIFF,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-
2994-1-AMD)
Submitted: August 19, 2005 Decided: September 8, 2005
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Cecil Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Breads, Jr.,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Cecil Thomas appeals the district court’s order
summarily dismissing his complaint in which he alleges that law
enforcement officers of the “Leonardtown Police Department” and the
“Office of the Sheriff” of St. Mary’s County, Maryland,
impermissibly seized his vehicle. We affirm.
In 2004, Thomas filed a complaint in state court against
Detective Michael W. Butler, Detective Gerald W. Johnson, the
“Office of the Sheriff,” and “Leonardtown, Maryland,” in which he
described a tort claim arising from the alleged illegal seizure of
his vehicle by “the Leonardtown Police” in “February of 2003.”
When Thomas later amended his complaint to state a claim under the
Fourth Amendment, based on the impermissible search and seizure of
his Ford Explorer, the Defendants removed the case to federal
district court. Ultimately, the district court granted the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Thomas’
complaint in its entirety.
Citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971),
Thomas appeals, asserting that (1) the district court erred in
exercising jurisdiction over the subject matter; and therefore, (2)
the district court erred when it refused to remand his case to the
state court. Pursuant to Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46, a federal
court may not award declaratory or injunctive relief that would
affect pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary
- 2 -
circumstances involving a great and immediate threat to federally
protected rights, such as bad faith prosecution, a patently
unconstitutional statute, or a biased state tribunal. Under
Younger, abstention is therefore appropriate if: (1) there are
ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings involve
important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings offer an
opportunity to present and resolve federal and constitutional
claims. Employers Res. Mgmt. Co. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1134
(4th Cir. 1995) (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden
State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)); Martin Marietta Corp.
v. Md. Comm’n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir.
1994). This court reviews a district court’s decision to abstain
for abuse of discretion. Shannon, 65 F.3d at 1134. Because Thomas
does not expressly seek to enjoin or dispute the settlement of his
forfeiture action, we find Younger inapplicable to the instant
appeal.
Thus, removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)
(1994), because the district court has jurisdiction over civil
actions arising under the laws of the United States without regard
to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Jurisdiction over
Thomas’ state law claims was proper under § 1441(c). Based on our
careful review of the record, we find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing Thomas’ entire complaint.
Moreover, if Thomas wishes to challenge the settlement of the
- 3 -
forfeiture action as unfair in any way, he is free to pursue such
relief in the appropriate state court.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
summarily dismissing Thomas’ complaint and denying his request for
remand to state court. 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.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -