UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1368

A & D SECURITY CONSULTANTS; LOWELL DUCKETT,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

WILLIAM GRAY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-00357-JFM)

Submitted: July 24, 2012 Decided: August 9, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

William T. Gray, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Gray appeals the district court’s order 

remanding his case to state court following removal and denying 

permission to proceed in forma pauperis. We dismiss in part and

affirm in part.

“An order remanding a case to the State court from 

which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, 

except that an order remanding a case to the State court from 

which it was removed pursuant to . . . [28 U.S.C. §] 1443 

[(2006)] shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.” 28 

U.S.C.A. § 1447(d) (West Supp. 2012). Section 1447(d) prohibits

appellate review only of remand orders based on (1) lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction, or (2) a defect in removal other 

than subject matter jurisdiction that was timely raised by a 

party. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 

(1996); Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 

196 (4th Cir. 2008). Thus, if the district court remands on one 

of these enumerated grounds and § 1443 is not implicated, 

“review is unavailable no matter how plain the legal error in 

ordering the remand.” Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U.S. 404, 413 n.13 

(1977).

In pertinent part, § 1443 authorizes removal of civil 

actions from state court that are brought “[a]gainst any person 

who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a 
3

right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of 

citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the 

jurisdiction thereof.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Removal is not 

proper unless the federal court determines both “that the right 

allegedly denied the removal petitioner arises under a federal 

law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of 

racial equality” and “that the removal petitioner is denied or 

cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the courts of 

[the] State[,] . . . [which] normally requires that the denial 

be manifest in a formal expression of state law.” Johnson v. 

Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

Although Gray’s notice of removal claimed to seek 

removal pursuant to § 1443, our review of the record leads us to 

conclude that this case does not fairly implicate § 1443. See

§ 1443(1); Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219. Because the district court 

concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 

complaint, its remand order is not subject to appellate review. 

See § 1447(d); Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 711-12; Ellenburg, 519 

F.3d at 196-98.

Turning to the district court’s denial of Gray’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying in forma pauperis status based on the information Gray
4

provided in his financial affidavit and notice of removal. See

Dillard v. Liberty Loan Corp., 626 F.2d 363, 364 (4th Cir. 

1980). Finally, to the extent Gray raises broad claims of

judicial bias, we find no basis in the record to support Gray’s 

unsubstantiated allegations and no grounds to question the 

impartiality of the district court judge. 

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, dismiss the appeal of the remand order, and affirm the 

district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART