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.
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