Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06899/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06899-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6899

AZAZEL AUSAR N’ZINGA OUTLAW, a/k/a Rodney Andrew McNeil,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

GREGG L. HERSHBERGER, Secretary for the Department of 

Public Safety and Correctional Services,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-01257-RDB)

Submitted: October 28, 2015 Decided: November 10, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Azazel Ausar N’Zinga Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6899 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to 

state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). The 

district court’s order also stated that the dismissal should 

count as a strike for purposes of § 1915(e). On appeal, 

Appellant contends that he should have been permitted to amend 

his complaint. We hold that Appellant was not entitled to amend 

his complaint before dismissal. 

The district court did not specify whether the complaint 

was dismissed with or without prejudice. Because the court

stated that the dismissal would count as a strike, we conclude 

that the dismissal was with prejudice. See United States v. 

McClean, 566 F.3d 391, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2009) (dismissal without 

prejudice for failure to state a claim does not count as a 

strike). We note that dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B) should 

be without prejudice, see Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 258 

(4th Cir. 2004), and we modify the district court’s order 

accordingly.

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal, 

modifying it to show that the dismissal is without prejudice and 

does not count as a strike. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 15-6899 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

Appeal: 15-6899 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 3 of 3