Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01364/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01364-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1364

JAAMAL FLEMING, 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. 

VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY; KATRINA WALKER; COMMONWEALTH OF 

VIRGINIA, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District 

Judge. (3:15-cv-00268-MHL) 

Submitted: October 21, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jaamal Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Liza Shawn Simmons, Assistant 

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 16-1364 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jaamal Fleming appeals from the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. 

The district court did not reversibly err in concluding that it 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Fleming’s complaint, and 

we reject his arguments on appeal to the contrary. The court’s 

dismissal, however, should have been without prejudice. 

See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v. OpenBand 

at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). 

We therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, modify 

the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal of 

Fleming’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is 

without prejudice, and affirm the dismissal as modified. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012); MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of 

Greenville Cty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e are 

entitled to affirm the court’s judgment on alternate grounds, if 

such grounds are apparent from the record.”). 

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

Appeal: 16-1364 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 2