UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2201
STARSHA SEWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN HOWARD, SR.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-02736-JFM)
Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s order
remanding for lack of jurisdiction and improper removal. A
district court’s remand order is generally not reviewable on
appeal or otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). While an
exception applies for civil rights cases removed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1443 (2006), it requires the removal petitioner to
allege: (1) the denial of a right arising under federal law
providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial
equality, and (2) that she is denied or cannot enforce the
specific federal rights in the state courts. Johnson v. Miss.,
421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975). Because Sewell relies on 28 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006), a provision of general applicability, she cannot
satisfy the first prong of Johnson. See Ga. v. Rachel, 384 U.S.
780, 792 (1966). We therefore lack authority to review the
district court’s remand order. We therefore deny Sewell’s
motion for default judgment and dismiss the appeal. 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
2