Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gary Pisner

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 2, 2026
• Docket: 25-1262
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1262 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/02/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1262 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/02/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

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 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1262 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/02/2026 Pg: 3 of 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