Case Name: Starsha SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HOWARD, Sr., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-24
Citations: 506 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 12-2201
Parties: Starsha SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HOWARD, Sr., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 506
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
Starsha SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HOWARD, Sr., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-2201.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2013.
Decided: Jan. 24, 2013.
Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Starsha Sewell appeals the district court's order remanding for lack of jurisdiction and improper removal. A district court's remand order is generally not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). While an exception applies for civil rights cases removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (2006), it requires the removal petitioner to allege: (1) the denial of a right arising under federal law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality, and (2) that she is denied or cannot enforce the specific federal rights in the state courts. Johnson v. Miss., 421 U.S. 213, 219, 95 S.Ct. 1591, 44 L.Ed.2d 121 (1975). Because Sewell relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), a provision of general applicability, she cannot satisfy the first prong of Johnson. See Ga. v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966). We therefore lack authority to review the district court's remand order. We therefore deny Sewell's motion for default judgment and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.