Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01686/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01686-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deborah Hickman
Appellee
DaJour Jones
Appellee
Marsha Kennedy
Appellee
Kiara Williamson
Appellee
Simone Wrenn
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1686

SIMONE WRENN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KIARA WILLIAMSON; DAJOUR JONES; DEBORAH HICKMAN; MARSHA 

KENNEDY, Lawyer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00434-KDB-SCR)

Submitted: October 28, 2024 Decided: January 14, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simone Wrenn, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1686 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Simone Wrenn appeals the district court’s order denying her amended application 

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Having 

reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

because the complaint failed to establish either diversity or federal question jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 73 (1997) 

(“Every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own 

jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review, even though the 

parties are prepared to concede it.” (cleaned up)); Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet 

Eng’g, 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir. 2004) (“[Q]uestions of subject-matter jurisdiction may 

be raised at any point during the proceedings and may (or, more precisely, must) be raised 

sua sponte by the court.”). Therefore, although we agree that dismissal was appropriate, 

we modify the district court’s judgment to reflect a dismissal without prejudice for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. See Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2022) (A 

dismissal based on 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.” (cleaned up)). 

Accordingly, we affirm as modified the district court’s order dismissing Wrenn’s 

complaint. 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: 24-1686 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2