Stephen Lee v. Tracy Modlin ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-1087      Doc: 7        Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-1087
    STEPHEN E. LEE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    TRACY MODLIN, Supervisor HUD/VASH Housing; BRANDON PIPPENS, VA
    Hud VASH Case Worker; CRAIG COOKE, Assistant Chief Hud VASH Housing;
    JOHN CLOW, Chief HUD VASH Housing; MORRIS RICKS, Patient
    Advocate/Consumer Relations; ANTHONY GIBSON, Supervisor/Consumer
    Relations; DET. DARNELL DAVIS, VAMC; RASHEED SAVAGE, Program
    Mgr/Helping Up Mission; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01609-DLB)
    Submitted: May 23, 2023                                             Decided: May 26, 2023
    Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stephen E. Lee, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-1087         Doc: 7      Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Stephen E. Lee appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his claims against
    Defendants for lack of jurisdiction and denying Lee’s motions for appointment of counsel.
    We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
    district court’s dismissal orders, Lee v. Savage, No. 1:21-cv-01609-DLB (D. Md. filed
    Apr. 25, 2022 & entered Apr. 26, 2022; Dec. 27, 2022), as modified to reflect that the
    dismissal of Lee’s claims 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) (“A
    dismissal for lack of . . . subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be one without prejudice,
    because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on
    the merits.”). 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-1087

Filed Date: 5/26/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/27/2023