Case Name: Mark Madison LOWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; Ponnette Smith, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 653 F. App'x 190
Docket Number: No. 16-6540
Parties: Mark Madison LOWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; Ponnette Smith, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 190–190

Head Matter:
Mark Madison LOWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; Ponnette Smith, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 16-6540
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2016
Decided: June 23, 2016
Mark Madison Lowe, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Madison Lowe appeals the district court's orders dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus as frivolous and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Lowe's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and amend his informal brief, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lowe v. Va. Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. 3:15-cv-00535-HEH, 2016 WL 1070824 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2016; Apr. 13, 2016). However, because the district court dismissed Lowe's petition for lack of jurisdiction, we modify the dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice and, thus, does not qualify as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). See Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not qualify as strike); McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 397 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that dismissal without prejudice for failure to state claim does not qualify as strike). 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