Marian Shearin v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 2, 2026
• Docket: 25-2112
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2112 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2112

MARIAN SPENCER SHEARIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:23-cv-00107-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marian Spencer Shearin, Appellant Pro Se. Garry Daniel Hartlieb, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2112 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Marian Spencer Shearin appeals the district court’s order dismissing her amended

civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. But we note the district court’s order does not reflect whether the

dismissal is made with or without prejudice. Accordingly, we modify the district court’s

order, Shearin v. United States, No. 4:23-cv-00107-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. July 23, 2025),

to reflect dismissal of Shearin’s action without prejudice, see Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th

366, 369 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must

be without prejudice because court lacking jurisdiction “has no power to adjudicate and

dispose of a claim on the merits” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and affirm the order

as modified, see id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2106; Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC, 375 F.3d

266, 268 n.1 (4th Cir. 2004) (“We are entitled to affirm the [district] court’s judgment on

alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the record.” (citation modified)).

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