Court Opinion

ID: 9963205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 19:00:58.158548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.806493
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1953     Doc: 39         Filed: 04/23/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1953

        KLEANTHIS N. ANDREADAKIS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; DEPARTMENT
        OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AMERICAN AIRLINES; JETBLUE
        AIRWAYS; SOUTHWEST AIRLINES; UNITED AIRLINES; NUMEROUS
        YET-TO-BE-NAMED EMPLOYEES OF THE 4 AIRLINES; STAT-MD,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00052-DJN)

        Submitted: February 29, 2024                                   Decided: April 23, 2024

        Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed as modified in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kleanthis Nicholas Andreadakis, Appellant Pro Se. Alisa Beth Klein, Brian James
        Springer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Jonathan
        Tyler Lucier, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia;
        Milton Roy Goldberg, STINSON LLP, Washington, D.C.; Douglas Michael Grimsley,
        DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, PC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1953      Doc: 39         Filed: 04/23/2024    Pg: 2 of 4

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1953      Doc: 39          Filed: 04/23/2024       Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Kleanthis N. Andreadakis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his pro se

        complaint alleging federal and state law claims against, inter alia, the Centers for Disease

        Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services (the

        “Government Defendants”), plus four airlines (the “Airline Defendants”). The district

        court dismissed without prejudice Andreadakis’ claims against the Government

        Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed with prejudice

        Andreadakis’ claims against the Airline Defendants for failure to state a claim upon which

        relief can be granted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

               We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order, Andreadakis v. CDC, No. 3:22-cv-00052-DJN (E.D. Va.

        July 11, 2022), but we modify the dismissal of Andreadakis’ claims against the Airline

        Defendants to be without prejudice, see King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 225 (4th Cir.

        2016) (“[T]he district court neither gave [the pro se plaintiff] the opportunity to amend nor

        did it engage in any discussion as to why amendment would be futile. In such a situation,

        the dismissal should generally be without prejudice.”). *

               We also grant STAT-MD’s unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal as to itself and

        dismiss the appeal in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

               *
                 Insofar as Andreadakis challenges the district court’s order denying his motion for
        an extension of time to respond to the Airline Defendants’ motion to dismiss, we are
        satisfied that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying an extension. See Carefirst
        of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396, 403 n.9 (4th Cir. 2003)
        (explaining standard of review).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1953      Doc: 39        Filed: 04/23/2024     Pg: 4 of 4

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                           AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART
                                                                  AND DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    4