Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gary Pisner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1262
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
GARY PISNER,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:24-cv-02807-LKG)
Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Pisner, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General, Kevin M. Cox,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gary Pisner seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding the case to the state
court from which it was removed and the district court’s order denying reconsideration.*
The district court remanded the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Generally, an order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed is not
reviewable on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (exception for cases
involving “[f]ederal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted”); 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (exception
for cases involving “[c]ivil rights cases”). The Supreme Court has instructed that
“§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands
based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things
Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995); see Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64,
66-67 (4th Cir. 2016) (“A district court may remand a case sua sponte for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction at any time, and such an order is not reviewable.” (citations modified).
As to the merits, the district court remanded the case because it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. We, therefore, are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. See Doe,
819 F.3d at 66. Accordingly, we dismiss Pisner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
* Pisner filed a motion to exceed page limitations for his reply brief. We grant that
motion.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --