Court Opinion

ID: 9912628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:00:39.078405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:16.027475
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2093      Doc: 8        Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2093

        TEYONNDA DE JESUS-ISRAEL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:23-cv-00027-RBS-DEM)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Teyonnda de Jesus-Israel, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr., William Ryan
        Waddell, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Richmond,
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2093         Doc: 8      Filed: 12/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Teyonnda de Jesus-Israel appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil

        complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, Jesus-Israel v. U-Haul

        Int’l, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00027-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2023), but modify the order to

        reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. See Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th

        Cir. 2022) (explaining that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without

        prejudice). 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