Daniel Felix appeals the district courts order dismissing his civil action for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The courts dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, however, should have been without prejudice. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowners Assn, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). We therefore modify that portion of the district courts order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice and affirm that dismissal as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e are entitled to affirm the courts judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the record.”). We affirm the remainder of the district courts dismissal for the reasons stated by the district court. Felix v. Dare Cnty. Sheriffs Dept, No. 2:19-cv-00030-BR, 2020 WL 1809156 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2020). We 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed as modified in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.