John Hudson v. N. Saine

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 7, 2023
• Docket: 21-6786
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6786 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6786

JOHN SCOTT HUDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

N. SAINE; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; MS. STRICKLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:19-ct-03380-M)

Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: November 7, 2023

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Scott Hudson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6786 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

John Scott Hudson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

We affirm.

We review de novo the dismissal of an action under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to

state a claim, accepting as true all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and

applying the same standards applicable in reviewing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 2017). To survive dismissal, “a complaint

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks

omitted); see Bazemore v. Best Buy, 957 F.3d 195, 200 (4th Cir. 2020) (requiring “factual

allegations that raise a right to relief above the speculative level” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). Likewise, we review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 991 F.3d 512, 516 (4th

Cir. 2021). When determining jurisdiction from the face of the complaint, “[w]e accept

the facts of the complaint as true as we would in context of a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.”

See Kenny v. Wilson, 885 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2018).

We have reviewed the district court’s order and find no reversible error in the

district court’s dismissal of Hudson’s First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to state

a claim. See Martin v. Duffy, 977 F.3d 294, 299 (4th Cir. 2020) (detailing elements of

claim); Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 501 (4th

Cir. 2005) (describing causation requirement). We also find no reversible error in the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-6786 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

district court’s dismissal of Hudson’s Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due

process claims as jurisdictionally barred. See Lawyer v. Hilton Head Pub. Serv. Dist. No.

1, 220 F.3d 298, 301-02 (4th Cir. 2000) (discussing Tax Injunction Act and related comity

principle) ∗; Folio v. City of Clarksburg, 134 F.3d 1211, 1214 (4th Cir. 1998) (defining

“plain, speedy and efficient” remedy); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 105-241.7, 105-241.11

to 105-241.17 (providing mechanism for obtaining review of improper assessment and

collection of taxes). Because the latter claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, however, they were subject to dismissal without prejudice. S. Walk at

Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th

Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, as modified to reflect a dismissal

of Hudson’s Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process claims without

prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. 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

∗ Although the district court did not address the comity principle, we may “affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on the record, notwithstanding that the reason was not addressed below.” Earle v. Shreves, 990 F.3d 774, 781 n.3 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 358 (2021); see also Gwozdz v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 846 F.3d 738, 743 (4th Cir. 2017) (describing comity principle’s jurisdictional bar to claims for damages that challenge state taxation).