Jaamal Fleming v. Virginia State University

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999829153-2]. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00268-MHL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999979583]. Mailed to: Jaamal Fleming. [16-1364]

Appeal: 16-1364

Doc: 22

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1364

JAAMAL FLEMING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY; KATRINA WALKER; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
M. Hannah Lauck, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00268-MHL)

Submitted:

October 21, 2016

Decided:

December 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jaamal Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Liza Shawn Simmons, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1364

Doc: 22

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jaamal
dismissing

Fleming
his

jurisdiction

on

appeals

civil
the

from

action
basis

the

for

of

district

lack

of

Eleventh

court’s
subject

Amendment

order
matter

immunity.

The district court did not reversibly err in concluding that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Fleming’s complaint, and
we reject his arguments on appeal to the contrary.
dismissal,

however,

should

have

been

The court’s

without

prejudice.

See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v. OpenBand
at

Broadlands,

LLC,

713

F.3d

175,

185

(4th

Cir.

2013).

We therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, modify
the

district

court’s

order

to

reflect

that

the

dismissal

of

Fleming’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
without

prejudice,

and

affirm

the

dismissal

as

modified.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012); MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of
Greenville Cty., 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
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

2