Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06299/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06299-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6299

BRYANT E. DAVIS, a/k/a Bryant Davidson,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DARIUS HORTON; EXPRESS FUNERAL FUNDING, LLC; HARTFORD LIFE 

INSURANCE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY; FIDELITY 

WORKPLACE SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Fidelity Investment Company; 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; 

ROBERT DEAN, Warden; SHANAE ROSS, Security Chief; TAKOR OBEN, 

Lieutenant; OLAN OWALABI, Lieutenant,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-00078-PJM)

Submitted: October 28, 2024 Decided: December 19, 2024

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant E. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Diana Lee, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Brian Patrick Downey, 

TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Eric 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6299 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Matthew Rigatuso, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6299 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Bryant E. Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and state law claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

The court’s dismissal of some claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, however, should 

have been without prejudice. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. 

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

that portion of the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice and 

affirm the dismissal as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. We affirm the remainder of the 

district court’s order. Davis v. Horton, No. 1:23-cv-00078-PJM (D. Md. filed Feb. 27, 

2024, & entered Feb. 28, 2024). We also deny Davis’s motion to rescind his payments 

pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6299 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 3 of 3