Court Opinion

ID: 9364649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 21:00:34.149717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.533006
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2278      Doc: 15         Filed: 01/18/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-2278

        JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR.,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        ROYAL PARK NURSING AND REHABILITATION,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cv-00634-RJC-DSC)

        Submitted: July 29, 2022                                          Decided: January 18, 2023

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joe Louis Adams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barry Sidney Cobb, YATES, MCLAMB &
        WEYHER, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2278      Doc: 15          Filed: 01/18/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Plaintiff Joe Louis Adams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting the motion

        of Defendant Liberty Commons Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Matthews, LLC

        d/b/a Royal Park of Matthews Rehabilitation & Health Center (“Royal Park”) to dismiss

        for lack of federal question subject matter jurisdiction the action Adams brought as power

        of attorney on behalf of his now-deceased father. On appeal, Adams contends that diversity

        jurisdiction exists over the action because he is a citizen of South Carolina and Royal Park

        is a citizen of North Carolina.

               We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.

        Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 991 F.3d 512, 516 (4th Cir. 2021). Federal

        jurisdiction may lie either on the basis of diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or as an action

        “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

        Diversity jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff is a citizen of a different State than the

        defendants and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and

        costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “[D]iversity jurisdiction depends on the citizenship status of

        the parties at the time an action commences.” Athena Auto., Inc. v. DiGregorio, 166 F.3d

        288, 290 (4th Cir. 1999).

               Here, Adams sued as power of attorney on behalf of his father, who, at the time the

        suit began, was a citizen of North Carolina. Therefore, we conclude that Adams is deemed

        a citizen of North Carolina for purposes of this case. See F. & H.R. Farman-Farmaian

        Consulting Eng’rs Firm v. Harza Eng’g Co., 882 F.2d 281, 284 (7th Cir. 1989) (noting that

        allowing grantee, rather than grantor, of power of attorney to determine citizenship would

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2278         Doc: 15        Filed: 01/18/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        enable parties to manufacture diversity jurisdiction); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) (“[T]he

        legal representative of an . . . incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same

        State as the . . . incompetent.”).     Accordingly, because we conclude that diversity

        jurisdiction is lacking, we deny Adams’ pending motions for a transcript, to submit digital

        media, and for the appointment of counsel, and we affirm.

               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

                                                      3