Case Name: Frederick SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-23
Citations: 692 F. App'x 132
Docket Number: No. 17-6248
Parties: Frederick SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 132–133

Head Matter:
Frederick SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-6248
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 2017
Decided: June 23, 2017
Frederick Sellers, Appellant Pro Se.
Erin Carter Tison, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Sellers appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sellers' motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sellers v. United States, No. 2:15-cv-00079-JPB-RWT, 2017 WL 634514 (N.D. W. Va., Feb. 16, 2017). However, because the district court, which lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Sellers' complaint, dismissed Sellers' unnecessary surgery claim with prejudice, we vacate this portion of the judgment and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the claim without prejudice. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner's Ass'n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice); see also Robb v. United States, 80 F.3d 884, 887 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (finding dismissal under independent contractor exception is dismissal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS