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

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1332
GEORGIA ARNETTE GREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
C. BRANSON VICKERY, III, State Elect District
Attorney; DAWN STROUD, Lenoir County Clerk; W.
E. SMITH, Sheriff; ALL JUDGES FOR LENOIR
COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-03-122-4-H)
Submitted: August 11, 2004 Decided: August 23, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Georgia Arnette Green, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Giles Meacham,
Jr., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 (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
- 2 -