T. Fadia v. Vijay Fadia ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1161 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1161
T. CAMILLE FADIA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VIJAY B. FADIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01006-NCT-JLW)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 23, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
T. Camille Fadia, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1161 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
T. Camille Fadia appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge, setting aside the clerk’s entry of default against Defendant, granting
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissing her civil
action with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order, Fadia v. Fadia, No. 1:20-cv-01006-
NCT-JLW (M.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2023), to reflect dismissal of Fadia’s action 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) (explaining that court lacking
“jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits”); see also
Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[D]ismissals for
lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the court, having determined that
it lacks jurisdiction . . . , is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the
underlying claims.”), and affirm the order as modified, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106; MM ex rel.
DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 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