Opinion
24-1256
07-29-2024
JIANYI ZHANG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN, In his official capacity as the Director of the National Science Foundation, Defendant-Appellee.
Jianyi Zhang, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 25, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01571-LMB-LRV)
Jianyi Zhang, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Jianyi Zhang appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Zhang's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief."). To the extent that Zhang challenges the district court's decision to dismiss his claim rather than granting leave to amend, a court does not abuse its discretion "by declining to grant a motion [for leave to amend] that was never properly made." Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharms. Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 631 (4th Cir. 2008).
However, because the basis of the court's dismissal of the complaint was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal must be without prejudice. Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) ("A dismissal for lack of standing-or any defect in subject matter jurisdiction-must be one without prejudice, because a court has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits." (cleaned up)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order as modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. 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.