Opinion
21-1351
01-04-2022
S.U., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATTHEW WICKERT, in his official capacity as State Registrar, Defendant-Appellee. and JOHN DOE, Plaintiff,
S.U., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas T. Lampman, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 22, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:20-cv-00450)
S.U., Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas T. Lampman, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, AGEE, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
S.U. appeals from the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation in part, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action challenging W.Va. Code. § 16-5-10(e) and other laws as violating the Fourteenth Amendment for lack of Article III standing and as barred by the Rooker-Feldman [*] doctrine. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Episcopal Church in S.C. v. Church Ins. Co. of Vt., 997 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir. 2021) (reviewing de novo dismissal for lack of standing); Hulsey v. Cisa, 947 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing de novo dismissal of claims as barred by Rooker-Feldman). However, a dismissal for lack of standing or any other defect in subject matter jurisdiction should be one without prejudice. S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we modify the district court's order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice and affirm as modified. S.U. v. Wickert, No. 2:20-cv-00450 (S.D. W.Va. Mar. 26, 2021).
We deny S.U.'s motion to expedite decision and 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
[*] D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).