Michael De Blasis v. Samuel DeBlasis, II

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 31, 2023
• Docket: 23-1469
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1469 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1469

MICHAEL E. DE BLASIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAMUEL J. DEBLASIS, II,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00771-JRR)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. De Blasis, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel J. DeBlasis, II, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, LLP, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1469 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Michael E. De Blasis appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion

to dismiss De Blasis’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as barred by the

Rooker-Feldman * doctrine. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error.

See Hulsey v. Cisa, 947 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review).

However, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be one without prejudice

“because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim

on the merits.” Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the

dismissal of De Blasis’ civil action is without prejudice and affirm the order as 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

D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. *

413 (1923).