Carpenter

MEMORANDUM **

Bruce Lee Carpenter, after entry of final judgment, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion to remand his action to quiet title on his property to the Oregon state court in which it was originally filed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

The denial of a motion to remand a removed case is reviewed de novo. See Audette v. Int’l Longshoreman’s & Warehouseman’s Union, 195 F.3d 1107 , 1111 (9th Cir.1999). Although Carpenter’s claim was ultimately dismissed by the district court for a failure to demonstrate a waiver of sovereign immunity, Carpenter does not take issue with the substance of that decision on appeal. Therefore, it is waived. See Paracor Fin. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 96 F.3d 1151 , 1168 (9th Cir.1996).

Instead, Carpenter argues that his claim to quiet title against the Commis *836 sioner was improperly removed. We disagree. Civil actions against the United States, its agencies, or its officers brought in a state court are subject to removal to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1); Nebraska v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1998); Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1034 (9th…