UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1066
WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II,
Defendants - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:12-cv-00413-BO)
Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
remanding his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An
order remanding a case to state court is generally not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006).
The Supreme Court has limited § 1447(d) to insulate from
appellate review those remand orders based on the grounds
specified in § 1447(c): a defect in the removal procedure or a
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Quackenbush v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996). In this case, the
district court remanded the case because it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. Moreover, this case
does not implicate § 1443. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
Davis also appeals the district court’s orders denying
his motion to stay the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation, motion to appoint counsel, and motion for
extension of time to file additional pleadings. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wake
Cnty. Human Servs. v. Davis, No. 5:12-cv-00413-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr.
9, 2013; Apr. 22, 2013). We deny Davis’ motions to appoint
counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
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