Vernon J. Leftridge v. State of Maryland Department of Human Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1653
VERNON J. LEFTRIDGE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 25-1655
VERNON J. LEFTRIDGE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:25-cv-01292-DKC)
Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 29, 2025

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vernon J. Leftridge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ann M. Sheridan, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In 2024, Vernon J. Leftridge filed suit in state court challenging the calculation of
welfare benefits. He then filed notice of removal to the district court. The court remanded
the action to state court for lack of jurisdiction because Leftridge, as the plaintiff, could not
remove the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Leftridge then
filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, arguing that the remand order was based on
Defendant’s fraud. The district court denied the motion insofar as it was brought pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), finding the remand order was not procured by any fraud, and
dismissed the remainder of Leftridge’s requested relief for lack of jurisdiction. See
Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 772 F.3d 1001, 1007-12 (4th Cir. 2014) (concluding that,
while remand orders based on lack of jurisdiction are not reviewable on reconsideration,
district courts have jurisdiction to review requests to vacate remand orders under Rule
60(b)(3)). Leftridge filed a notice of appeal of the remand order and the order denying his
Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate that order.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly denied
Leftridge’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion. Moreover, the remand order is not reviewable on appeal
or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Accordingly, we deny all of Leftridge’s pending
motions, dismiss his appeal of the remand order, and affirm the district court’s order
denying Leftridge’s motion to vacate the remand order. Leftridge v. Md. Dep’t of Human
Servs., No. 8:25-cv-01292-DKC (D. Md. May 30 & June 5, 2025). We dispense with oral

-- 3 of 4 --

4
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 4 of 4 --