WOLFE v. HERRING (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-09-13No. No. 21-1516

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as modified to clarify that the dismissal is without prejudice.

John Michael Wolfe challenged a district court's decision to dismiss his federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court examined the record and concluded that the district court committed no reversible error in reaching its jurisdictional conclusion. The court affirmed the dismissal but modified the order to specify that the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Wolfe could potentially refile his claim if he addressed the jurisdictional defect.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court properly dismissed the § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Whether a jurisdictional dismissal must be without prejudice

Procedural posture

Wolfe appealed the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 complaint on jurisdictional grounds.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

John Michael Wolfe appeals the district courts order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Wolfe v. Herring, No. 1:20-cv-00189-LO-JFA (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2021). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

. Because the district courts dismissal was for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we modify the district courts order to clarify that the dismissal is without prejudice. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowners Assn v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal for ․ [a] defect in subject matter jurisdiction[ ] must be one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.”). PER CURIAM:

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.