Court Opinion

ID: 9831338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:48.815097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.164912
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1469      Doc: 20         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1469

        MICHAEL E. DE BLASIS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SAMUEL J. DEBLASIS, II,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00771-JRR)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael E. De Blasis, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel J. DeBlasis, II, DECARO, DORAN,
        SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, LLP, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1469      Doc: 20         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael E. De Blasis appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion

        to dismiss De Blasis’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as barred by the

        Rooker-Feldman * doctrine. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error.

        See Hulsey v. Cisa, 947 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review).

        However, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be one without prejudice

        “because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim

        on the merits.” Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the

        dismissal of De Blasis’ civil action is without prejudice and affirm the order as modified.

        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

               D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S.
               *

        413 (1923).

                                                     2