T. Fadia v. Vijay Fadia

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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