Court Opinion

ID: 9397277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:02.872551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.019026
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1161      Doc: 5        Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1161

        T. CAMILLE FADIA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VIJAY B. FADIA,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01006-NCT-JLW)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        T. Camille Fadia, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1161         Doc: 5      Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               T. Camille Fadia appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of

        the magistrate judge, setting aside the clerk’s entry of default against Defendant, granting

        Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissing her civil

        action with prejudice.     We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order, Fadia v. Fadia, No. 1:20-cv-01006-

        NCT-JLW (M.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2023), to reflect dismissal of Fadia’s action without

        prejudice, see S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at

        Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that court lacking

        “jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits”); see also

        Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[D]ismissals for

        lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the court, having determined that

        it lacks jurisdiction . . . , is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the

        underlying claims.”), and affirm the order as modified, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106; MM ex rel.

        DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e are entitled

        to affirm the court’s judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the

        record.”).

               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

                                                     2