Elijah Smith, III v. Betsy Johnson Regional Hosp

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-00493-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999262825]. Mailed to: Elijah Smith III, Gary Smith, Kelly Smith & Sandra Smith. [13-2036]

Appeal: 13-2036

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2036

ELIJAH SMITH, III; KELLY SMITH; SANDRA SMITH; GARY SMITH,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BETSY JOHNSON REGIONAL HOSPITAL,
HOSPITAL; WAKEMED, Hospital,

INC.;

DUKE

REGIONAL

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00493-F)

Submitted:

December 17, 2013

Decided: December 19, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah Smith, III, Kelly Smith, Sandra Smith, and Gary Smith,
Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2036

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs

appeal

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing their action after a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(2006).
court

We have reviewed the record and agree that the district
lacked

action.

subject

matter

jurisdiction

over

Plaintiffs’

See Smith v. Betsy Johnson Reg’l Hosp., Inc., No. 5:13-

cv-00493-F

(E.D.N.C.

Aug.

9,

2013).

However,

since

the

dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
is

not

a

decision

on

without prejudice.

the

merits,

such

dismissal

should

be

S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n,

Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir.
2013).
to

We therefore modify the district court’s dismissal order

reflect

that

the

dismissal

is

affirm the dismissal as modified.

without

prejudice,

and

we

28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2006); MM

ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536
(4th

Cir.

2002)

(“[W]e

are

entitled

to

affirm

the

court’s

judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from
the record.”).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
2