Court Opinion

ID: 9896272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:01:04.925717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:45.388414
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6786      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/07/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-6786

        JOHN SCOTT HUDSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        N. SAINE; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; MS.
        STRICKLAND,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:19-ct-03380-M)

        Submitted: October 13, 2022                                  Decided: November 7, 2023

        Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Scott Hudson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6786       Doc: 10         Filed: 11/07/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               John Scott Hudson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

        We affirm.

               We review de novo the dismissal of an action under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to

        state a claim, accepting as true all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and

        applying the same standards applicable in reviewing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal.

        Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 2017). To survive dismissal, “a complaint

        must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

        plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks

        omitted); see Bazemore v. Best Buy, 957 F.3d 195, 200 (4th Cir. 2020) (requiring “factual

        allegations that raise a right to relief above the speculative level” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)). Likewise, we review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject

        matter jurisdiction. Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 991 F.3d 512, 516 (4th

        Cir. 2021). When determining jurisdiction from the face of the complaint, “[w]e accept

        the facts of the complaint as true as we would in context of a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.”

        See Kenny v. Wilson, 885 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2018).

               We have reviewed the district court’s order and find no reversible error in the

        district court’s dismissal of Hudson’s First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to state

        a claim. See Martin v. Duffy, 977 F.3d 294, 299 (4th Cir. 2020) (detailing elements of

        claim); Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 501 (4th

        Cir. 2005) (describing causation requirement). We also find no reversible error in the

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6786      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/07/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        district court’s dismissal of Hudson’s Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due

        process claims as jurisdictionally barred. See Lawyer v. Hilton Head Pub. Serv. Dist. No.

        1, 220 F.3d 298, 301-02 (4th Cir. 2000) (discussing Tax Injunction Act and related comity

        principle) ∗; Folio v. City of Clarksburg, 134 F.3d 1211, 1214 (4th Cir. 1998) (defining

        “plain, speedy and efficient” remedy); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 105-241.7, 105-241.11

        to 105-241.17 (providing mechanism for obtaining review of improper assessment and

        collection of taxes). Because the latter claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter

        jurisdiction, however, they were subject to dismissal without prejudice. S. Walk at

        Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th

        Cir. 2013).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, as modified to reflect a dismissal

        of Hudson’s Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process claims without

        prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. 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

               ∗
                Although the district court did not address the comity principle, we may “affirm a
        judgment for any reason appearing on the record, notwithstanding that the reason was not
        addressed below.” Earle v. Shreves, 990 F.3d 774, 781 n.3 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation
        marks omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 358 (2021); see also Gwozdz v. HealthPort Techs.,
        LLC, 846 F.3d 738, 743 (4th Cir. 2017) (describing comity principle’s jurisdictional bar to
        claims for damages that challenge state taxation).

                                                     3