Katharine Dillon v. Theresa Butler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00424-WO-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999989461].. [16-1760]

Appeal: 16-1760

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1760

KATHARINE B. DILLON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
VINCENT ARTHUR BUTLER; JOAN M. PATE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THERESA MARIE BUTLER; PATRICIA B. GUIN, individually and as
Executor of the Estate of DAVID R. GUIN; REGINA B. SRIRAMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00424-WO-JLW)

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katharine B. Dillon, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Terry Graebe,
GRAEBE HANNA & SULLIVAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Appeal: 16-1760

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1760

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Katharine B. Dillon appeals from the district court’s orders
dismissing her civil complaint with prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and denying her motion for reconsideration.
On

appeal,

she

does

not

challenge

the

jurisdictional

determination, but contends that the district court should have
dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
Because a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without
prejudice, see S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v.
OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013), we
affirm

the

dismissal

order

as

dismissal is without prejudice.

modified

to

reflect

that

See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012).

the
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

3