2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-3-2013

Uchenna Obianyo v. State of Tennessee

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1341

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Uchenna Obianyo v. State of Tennessee" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 867.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/867
CLD-197 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-1341

___________

UCHENNA N. OBIANYO,

Appellant

v.

STATE OF TENNESSEE; 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 1:12-cv-5320)

District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 18, 2013

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 3, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________
2

PER CURIAM

Uchenna Obianyo, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal 

of his complaint. Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

In his complaint, Obianyo alleges that he is a diplomat who has served as an 

attaché to the United States since 1989 and has never been paid his “diplomatic immunity 

stipend.” He also claims that all of his belongings, including his personal identification 

documents, have been confiscated by the State of Tennessee and the United States 

government. Obianyo also asserts that the defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028 & 

1343. As relief, Obianyo seeks $10 million in damages. The District Court sua sponte 

dismissed Obianyo’s complaint without prejudice.

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 12911

 1 Generally, when a district court has dismissed a complaint without prejudice, the 

dismissal is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 unless the litigant cannot cure the 

defect or where the litigant declares an intention to stand on the complaint, whereupon 

the district court’s order becomes final. Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 

(3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam). We read the statement attached to Obianyo’s notice of 

and exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d 

Cir. 2000). To survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. 
3

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)). We may summarily affirm on any basis supported by the record. Murray v. 

Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

III.

The District Court properly dismissed Obianyo’s complaint. First, criminal 

statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 1343, which criminalizes wire fraud, and 18 U.S.C. § 1028, 

which criminalizes fraud related to identification documents, provide no private right of 

action for use by a litigant such as Obianyo. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 

283-84 (2002). Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment “enacts a sovereign immunity 

from suit,” precluding Obianyo’s federal suit against Tennessee. Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene 

Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 267 (1997). Tennessee has not consented to be sued in federal 

court. See Berndt v. Tenn., 796 F.2d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 1986); see also Tenn. Ann. Code 

§ 20-13-102(a). Finally, to the extent that Obianyo asserts a breach of contract claim 

against the United States government, his claim must be brought in the United States 

Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see also Anselma Crossing, L.P. v. 

USPS, 637 F.3d 238, 242 n.6 (3d Cir. 2011).

 

appeal as his declaration of intent to stand on the allegations contained in his complaint; 

accordingly, we may exercise jurisdiction over his appeal. 
4

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

judgment.2

 2 Offering Obianyo leave to amend his complaint was not necessary under the 

circumstances presented here. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 

(3d Cir. 2002). 

 See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.\