Pisner v. Attorney Grievance Commission - Appeal Dismissed

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 2nd, 2026

Detected March 3rd, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Gary Pisner's appeal of a district court order remanding his case to state court. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the remand order, as such orders are generally not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed Gary Pisner's appeal concerning a district court's order to remand his case back to state court and the subsequent denial of reconsideration. The appellate court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the remand order, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which generally prohibits appellate review of remand orders. The dismissal was based on the principle that such orders are not reviewable, especially when the remand is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This decision means that the case will proceed in the state court system as originally ordered by the district court. For legal professionals, this serves as a reminder of the limited grounds for appealing remand orders, particularly those based on jurisdictional issues. There are no immediate compliance actions required for regulated entities, as this is a specific case outcome rather than a new regulatory requirement.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 25-1262 ATTORNEY GRIEVA NCE COMMIS SION OF MARYLAN D, Petitioner - Appellee, v. GARY PISNER, Respondent - Appellan t. Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the District of Maryland, at Greenbe lt. Lydia Kay Griggsby, D istrict Judge. (8:2 4- cv -02807-LKG) Submitted: February 2 6, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLE BAUM, Circuit Judges, and FL OYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublis hed per curiam opin ion. Gary Pisner, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General, Kevin M. Cox, OFFICE OF THE ATT ORNEY GENERAL O F MARYLAND, Balti more, Maryland, for Appell ee. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Gary Pisner seeks to appeal the district cour t ’ s order remanding the case to the state court from which it was removed and the district court’s order denyi ng reconsideration. * The district court re manded the case bec ause it lacked subjec t matter jurisdiction. Generally, an order re manding a case to the state cour t 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 off icers or agencie s sued or prosecu ted”); 28 U.S. C. § 1443 (excepti on for cases involving “[c]ivil right s cases”). The Supreme Court has instructed tha t “§ 1447(d) must be re ad in pari ma teria with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from r eview under § 1 447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U. S. 124, 127 (1995); see Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66- 67 (4th Cir. 201 6) (“A distric t court may r emand a case sua s ponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, and such an order is not reviewable.” (citations modified). As to the merits, t he dis trict court remanded the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We, therefore, are witho ut jurisdi ction to review the remand order. See Doe, 819 F.3d at 66. Acco rdingly, we dismis s Pisner’s appeal for lack of juris diction. We * Pisner filed a motion t o exceed page limitations for his reply brief. We grant that motion.

3 dispense with oral a rgument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mater ials before this court and argum ent would no t aid the decisional process. DISMISSED