UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1780

JOELLE ANGEL; ROZELYND BRIGHT; CHERIE LEE; CYNTHIA PARKER; 

KELVIN PENNY; PEGGY PENNY; SAMUEL WARD; MICHAEL WILLIAMS; 

SANDRA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

KRISTINA VINSON,

Appellant,

and

KEITH L. CURRY; STEPHEN VINSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARLESTOWNE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.; CAVALIER 

COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC; ATLANTIC COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, 

CORPORATION; TRENTE BALDERSON; JEFFREY HODGSON; PHILIP 

MASSA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-00453-RAJ-RJK)

Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 25, 2023

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1780 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joelle Angel, Rozelynd Bright, Cherie Lee, Cynthia Parker, Kelvin Penny, Peggy Penny, 

Samuel Ward, Michael Williams, Sandra Williams, Keith L. Curry, Stephen Vinson,

Kristina Vinson, Appellants Pro Se. Eve Grandis Campbell, O’HAGAN MEYER PLLC, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1780 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s orders granting Charlestowne Condominium 

Association, Inc.’s (“CCA’s”) motion to remand this removed action to state court for lack 

of federal subject matter jurisdiction and denying Appellants’ motions for sanctions against 

CCA’s counsel and their motion to amend the motion for sanctions. CCA has moved to 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was 

removed is not reviewable on appeal,” but there is an exception for “an order remanding a 

case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to” 28 U.S.C. § 1443. 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(d); see BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1536-

37 (2021). Liberally construing Appellants’ pro se notice of removal, see Wall v. Rasnick, 

42 F.4th 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2022), Appellants premised removal on § 1443 based on their 

counterclaim under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619. We therefore conclude 

that we have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, we deny CCA’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal.

Turning to Appellants’ challenges to the orders remanding the action to state court 

for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and denying Appellants’ motions for 

sanctions and to amend the motion for sanctions, we have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Angel v. Charlestowne 

Condo. Ass’n, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00453-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2022; June 30, 2022). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1780 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1780 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 4 of 4