Green v. Vickery

Fourth Circuit

Green v. Vickery

108 F. App'x 86

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 2004

Docket04-1332

StatusUnpublished

This text of 108 F. App'x 86 (Green v. Vickery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Green v. Vickery, 108 F. App'x 86 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Georgia Arnette Green appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her action in which she sought to remove her criminal prosecution from state court to the federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (2000). While the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the case, see City of Greenwood, MS. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 827-28, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1966), the proper disposition upon a determination of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction is to remand the case to the state court, rather than dismiss the action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(c)(3), (4), 1447(c) (2000); see also Roche v. Lincoln Prop. Co., 373 F.3d 610, 612 (4th Cir.2004) (determining that district court lacked jurisdiction, vacating district court’s order, and directing action remanded to state court); Virginia v. Wallace, 357 F.2d 105, 106 (4th Cir.1966) (affirming district court order remanding criminal prosecution to state court).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand this case to the district court with instructions to remand the case to the state court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Georgia Arnette Green appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her action in which she sought to remove her criminal prosecution from state court to the federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (2000). While the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the case, see City of Greenwood, MS. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 827-28, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1966), the proper disposition upon a determination of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction is to remand the case to the state court, rather than dismiss the action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(c)(3), (4), 1447(c) (2000); see also Roche v. Lincoln Prop. Co., 373 F.3d 610, 612 (4th Cir.2004) (determining that district court lacked jurisdiction, vacating district court’s order, and directing action remanded to state court); Virginia v. Wallace, 357 F.2d 105, 106 (4th Cir.1966) (affirming district court order remanding criminal prosecution to state court).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand this case to the district court with instructions to remand the case to the state court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F. App'x 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-vickery-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack