Court Opinion

ID: 9951383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 21:00:40.90241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:59.227809
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1481      Doc: 15         Filed: 03/14/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1481

        UNITED SOURCE ONE, INC.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DOMINIC FRANK,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-02309-JKB)

        Submitted: March 12, 2024                                         Decided: March 14, 2024

        Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Steven N. Leitess, Pierce C. Murphy, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON,
        SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Dominic Frank, Appellee Pro
        Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1481      Doc: 15          Filed: 03/14/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               United Source One, Inc. (“US1”), appeals the district court’s order denying US1’s

        motion for default judgment and sua sponte dismissing its complaint. On appeal, US1

        solely argues that the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the complaint without

        granting leave to amend.

               Before a district court sua sponte dismisses a complaint, it “must . . . afford[] notice

        and an opportunity to amend the complaint or otherwise respond.” Robertson v. Anderson

        Mill Elementary Sch., 989 F.3d 282, 291 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        The district court did not follow this procedure, and the faults it found in the complaint are

        the type that could conceivably be remedied in an amended complaint. Moreover, had

        Appellee not been in default and filed his own motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.

        12(b)(6), US1 would have been entitled to amend its complaint as a matter of course. See

        Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing

        US1’s complaint without granting leave to amend. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of

        the district court’s order denying US1’s motion for default judgment, * vacate the portion

        of the order dismissing the complaint, and remand with instructions to allow US1 to file an

        amended complaint.

               *
                   We affirm this portion of the district court’s order because US1 does not challenge
        it in its opening brief. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir.
        2017).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1481         Doc: 15    Filed: 03/14/2024   Pg: 3 of 3

              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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

                                                  3