UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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