Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06917/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06917-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Umar Adeyola
Appellant
Tom Gera
Appellee
Mohamed Moubarek
Appellee
Shitiz Sriwastava
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee
West Virginia University
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6917

UMAR ADEYOLA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MOHAMED MOUBAREK; TOM GERA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

SHITIZ SRIWASTAVA, M.D.; WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY,

Defendants - Appellees,

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

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00781-TDC)

Submitted: January 3, 2025 Decided: January 13, 2025

Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Umar Adeyola, Appellant Pro Se. Vickie Elaine LeDuc, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6917 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Umar Adeyola appeals the district court’s orders granting West Virginia 

University’s (WVU) and Shitiz Sriwastava’s motions to dismiss and granting Mohamed 

Moubarek, Tom Gera, and the United States’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for 

summary judgment on Adeyola’s complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (FTCA), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Limiting our review of the record to 

the issues raised in Adeyola’s informal brief, we have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 

2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our

review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).*

 

We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction, a 

dismissal for failure to state a claim, or a grant of summary judgment. Bulger v. Hurwitz, 

62 F.4th 127, 135 (4th Cir. 2023) (subject matter jurisdiction); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. 

Kurbanov, 963 F.3d 344, 350 (4th Cir. 2020) (personal jurisdiction); Rockville Cars, LLC 

v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018) (failure to state a claim); Dean v. 

Jones, 984 F.3d 295, 301 (4th Cir. 2021) (summary judgment).

We discern no error in the district court’s conclusion that WVU is an arm of the 

State of West Virginia and thus was immune from suit. See, e.g., W. Va. Univ. Bd. of 

* Because Adeyola does not challenge the district court’s rejection of his claim 

against Moubarek in his informal brief, we decline to review that claim.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6917 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 4
3

Governors ex rel. W. Va. Univ. v. Rodriguez, 543 F. Supp. 2d 526, 529-35 (N.D. W. Va. 

2008). Nor did the district court err in finding that Adeyola did not adequately show the 

court in Maryland had personal jurisdiction over Sriwastava, a WVU doctor. Sriwastava 

is a citizen of West Virginia, is not licensed to practice medicine in Maryland, and did not 

treat Adeyola in Maryland. There is no evidence that his treatment of Adeyola arose out 

of Sriwastava’s purposeful activities directed at potential patients residing in Maryland. 

And Sriwastava’s limited communications with Adeyola’s medical providers in Maryland 

do not render it “constitutionally reasonable” to hale him into court in Maryland. 

Consulting Eng’rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273, 278 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

As for Adeyola’s FTCA claim against the United States, our review of the record 

reveals no error in the district court’s conclusion that Adeyola failed to show that he 

properly exhausted that claim. See Est. of Van Emburgh ex rel. Van Emburgh v. United 

States, 95 F.4th 795, 800-01 (4th Cir. 2024) (discussing FTCA’s exhaustion requirement). 

Finally, we discern no error in the district court’s finding that Gera was immune from 

Adeyola’s Bivens claim under 42 U.S.C. § 233(a), as Gera was a member of the United 

States Public Health Service and was acting within the scope his employment when he 

treated Adeyola.

We observe, however, that the district court should have dismissed Adeyola’s 

claims against Gera and the United States without prejudice for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. See Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299, 304 (4th Cir. 1995) (explaining 

that when a court finds a jurisdictional bar to an FTCA claim, “rather than granting 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6917 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 3 of 4
4

summary judgment pursuant to [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 56(c), the district court should . . .

dismiss[] the [claim] for want of jurisdiction under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(1)”); see also 

Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting 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” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders, as modified to reflect the 

dismissal without prejudice of Adeyola’s claims against Gera and the United States. See 

Abbott v. Pastides, 900 F.3d 160, 175 n.8 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting that we may “treat the 

district court’s entry of summary judgment . . . as a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for want 

of jurisdiction, and affirm on that basis”). 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: 23-6917 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 4 of 4