Case Name: Wanda J. BURKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James RODGER, Norfolk Neighborhood Development; Cleve Chappell; David Firnstalh; Josh Haight; Ronald Lee; Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Renovation Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-16
Citations: 711 F. App'x 180
Docket Number: No. 17-2199
Parties: Wanda J. BURKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James RODGER, Norfolk Neighborhood Development; Cleve Chappell; David Firnstalh; Josh Haight; Ronald Lee; Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Renovation Department, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
Wanda J. BURKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James RODGER, Norfolk Neighborhood Development; Cleve Chappell; David Firnstalh; Josh Haight; Ronald Lee; Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Renovation Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-2199
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 15, 2018
Decided: February 16, 2018
Wanda J. Burks, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wanda J. Burks appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. .R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Burks v. Rodger, No. 2:17-cv-00390-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2017). 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
Although the district court dismissed the action without prejudice, the district court's order is a final appealable order under Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc,, 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015), and Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 247 (4th Cir. 2017) ("repeated, ineffective attempts at amendment suggest that further amendment of the complaint would be futile").