Court Opinion

ID: 995978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:44:43.688987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:08.372531
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD AYANBIOLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                               No. 98-1172
DAN WUDSKE; RKW ASSOCIATES;
J. ALLEN OFFEN; SCIENCE PARK
ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(CA-97-2332-DKC)

Submitted: July 31, 1998

Decided: August 20, 1998

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Chris C. Asher, UNIVERSAL LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Paul A. Kaplan, Erik D. Bolog, DAVID, HAGNER,
KUNEY & DAVISON, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Edward Ayanbiola appeals from the district court's order dismiss-
ing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his complaint alleging race
and national origin discrimination in violation of federal and state
law. We affirm.

This Court reviews a district court's dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction de novo. See Robb v. United States, 80 F.3d 884,
887 (4th Cir. 1996). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
federally assisted programs from discriminating against individuals
on the basis of race, color, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d
(1994). Ayanbiola has not demonstrated that the Defendants are the
recipients of federal funds, and accordingly the district court properly
found that there was no federal question jurisdiction. There is like-
wise no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994), as
Ayanbiola and all of the individual Defendants reside in Maryland,
and the corporate Defendant has its principal place of business in
Maryland. We therefore find that the district court did not err in dis-
missing Ayanbiola's complaint.

Although Ayanbiola claims that he received no notice of the
Defendants' motion, and argues that the district court erred in not
requiring the Defendants to offer proof of service, we note that unlike
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, addressing service of process, Rule 5, addressing
service of pleadings, does not require proof of service via affidavit.
See Timmons v. United States, 194 F.2d 357 (4th Cir. 1952). Further,
we note that the district court's dismissal was not based upon Ayan-
biola's failure to respond, but rather upon the lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. As we agree with this determination, we affirm. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

                    2
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3