Rodney Burr v. Douglas Gansler

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1147

RODNEY L. BURR,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DOUGLAS F. GANSLER; MARCUS L. BROWN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-03736-CCB)

Submitted: May 16, 2013 Decided: May 30, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Rodney L. Burr, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Rodney L. Burr appeals the district court’s order

remanding the State’s prosecution of Burr for a traffic

violation to state court and dismissing Burr’s federal complaint

alleging that the state regulation requiring that he wear a seat

belt while driving violates the Constitution. As this court may

not ordinarily review a district court’s remand order by reason

of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006), and we reject Burr’s argument

that there was supplemental jurisdiction over the state

prosecution by virtue of his complaint, we dismiss Burr’s appeal

to the extent he seeks review of that portion of the order. See

Borneman v. United States, 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000);

see also Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborer Vacation

Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (“[A] federal court

does not have original jurisdiction over a case in which the

complaint presents a state-law cause of action, but also asserts

that federal law deprives the defendant of a defense he may

raise . . . or that a federal defense the defendant may raise is

not sufficient to defeat the claim.”) (citation omitted).

With respect to Burr’s complaint, we agree with the

district court that it is without merit and therefore affirm the

portion of the court’s order dismissing the complaint.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3