FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 85 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -0 14 99 -RLV U.S. BANK, NA, as Trus te e fo r BS ABS 20 06 -ISAOA, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOHN PAUL OTAYEK , AndAll Oth ers , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: InApri l 2 01 1, U.S. Ban k, N.A., as Tru st ee, p ur ch as eda pi ece o f pr op erty inGwin ne ttCo un ty, Geo rg ia , at a f or ecl os ur e sa le an d t he reaf te r fi le d a di sp os se ss ory

warran t ag ai ns t J oh n P au l Ot ay ek(an d o th ers ) in th e Gwin ne tt Co un ty Magi st rat e Co urt t o o bt ai n p os se ss io n o f th e p ro pe rty. O ta y ekres po nd ed , cl ai min g a n i nt eres t i n t he pro pe rty andco un te rcl ai m in g a ga in stth e Ban k. Aft er th e Ma gi st rat e Co urt s etth e cas e fo r a h eari ng , Otayek rem ov edth e act io n t o t he Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a, as se rti ng th at th atco urt h adjuri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §§ 14 41 an d 1 44 3. The Ban k m ov edth e co urt t o re m an d t he cas e to th e Ma gi st rat e Co urt, an d th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d i ts m ot io n a ndrem an de d t he cas e. Otayek ap pe al s the
ru li ng . Otayek arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on un de r § 1 44 3 b ecau se Geo rg ia ’s law g ov ern in g fo recl os ur es an d d is po ss es so ry act io ns vi ol at es hi s ci vi l rig ht s. Indo in g s o, h e ch al le ng es ou r pr eced en ts ho ld in g tha t § 14 43 pe rta in s o nl y to th e “ equa l ci vi l ri gh ts ” rel at in g t o ra ci al equa li ty. He ur ge s u s t o c on si de r th e pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e st atut e an d o ve rtu rnth os e p rece de nt s. 1 W e rev ie w de n ov o wh ethe r a d is tri ctco urt h adfed eral subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on fol lo win g re m ov al
. Ca st le be rr y v. Goldo me Cr edit

Co rp . , 40 8 F .3d

In his reply

brief, O tayek argues that the B ank has not re g istered with Ge org ia’s 1 Secre tary of State and a

rgues that, as a

result, he c annot file a

civil action ag ainst the Ba nk in Georg ia’s cour

ts. W e dee m the argument abandone d since he did not raise it in his opening brief. Al-Amin v. Sm ith , 511 F.3d 1317, 1336 n.38 ( 11th Cir. 2008). 277 3, 7 80 –8 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Rem an ds ba se d o n g ro un ds sp eci fie d i n 2 8 U.S.C.

§ 1 44 7( c) ar e in su la te d fr om ap pe ll at e rev ie w un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 7( d)
. Herna ndezv. Se min ol e C’nty . , 33 4 F .3d12 33 , 12 36 (11 thCir . 20 03 ). To the
ex te ntth ata di st ric t co urt b as es it s re m an d o rd er o n 2 8 U.S.C. § § 1 44 7( d) an d 14 43 , ho wev er, we h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th atord er. 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 47 (d ); Ala ba ma v. Co nl ey , 24 5 F .3d12 92 , 12 93 n.1 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Und er § 14 43 , a de fen dantm ay rem ov e a ca se in it ia te d i n s ta te co urt i f he is

“ de ni edor c an no t en fo rce i n t he co urts of s uc h S ta te a ri gh t u nd er an y law pr ov id in g fo r th e equa l ci vi l ri gh ts of t he Uni te d S ta te s, o r of all pe rs on s wi th in th e juri sd ic ti on th ereo f.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 43 (1 ). The re m ov al pe ti ti on m us t s ho w: (1 )

“ th atth e ri gh t upo n wh ic h [h e] reli es ari se s u nd er a fe de ral law ‘pro vi di ng for sp eci fic civ il rig ht s s ta te d i n t erm s o f raci al equa li ty’ ” an d (2 ) th athe ha s b een de ni edor c an no t en fo rce t ha t ri gh t i n t he st at e co urts .” Co nl ey , 24 5 F .3dat 1 29 5 (quo ti ng Geo rg ia v. Rach el , 38 4 U.S. 7 80 , 79 2, 8 6 S . Ct. 1 78 3, 1 79 0, 1 6 L.Ed .2d 92 5 (1 96 6) ). The d is tri ctco urt l ack edrem ov al juri sd ic ti on un de r § 1 44 3 b ecau se th is act io n d oe s n otari se un de r a fed eral law p ro te ct in g c iv il rig ht s s ta te d i n t erm s of raci al equa li ty; m or eo ve r, Otayek ca n e nf or ce h is rig ht s i n s ta te co urt. Rac he l , 38 4 U.S. at79 2, 7 94 , 86 S. Ct. at17 90 –9 1. AFFIRMED.

3