Ozie Hall, Jr. v. Matthew Liles

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1011 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/06/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1011 OZIE L. HALL, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATTHEW L. LILES, individually and as Assistant Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; JAMES STEVEN BASS, individually and as Assistant State Auditor of the State of North Carolina; ALEXENDRA S. SCHAUSS, individually and as Director of the Division of School Business, N.C. Department of Public Instruction; LEIGH ANN KERR, individually and as Assistant Director of the Division of School Business, N.C. Department of Public Instruction; EUGENE THOMAS BRUTON, individually and as Staff Accountant in the Division of School Business, N.C. Department of Public Instruction, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00220-BO-BM) Submitted: April 16, 2025 Decided: May 6, 2025 Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ozie L. Hall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tamika Lynn Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for USCA4 Appeal: 24-1011 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/06/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1011 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/06/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Ozie L. Hall, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Although our review of the record has revealed no reversible error, we conclude that the claims against the defendants in their official capacities should have been dismissed without prejudice because, as the district court correctly found, these claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See McHugh v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 55 F.4th 529, 534 n.2 (7th Cir. 2022) (“A federal court cannot enter judgment on the merits when Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.”); see also Singleton v. Md. Tech. & Dev. Corp., 103 F.4th 1042, 1046-47, 1052 (4th Cir. 2024) (affirming dismissal without prejudice based on Eleventh Amendment immunity). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order as modified to reflect that the official-capacity claims are dismissed without prejudice. Hall v. Liles, No. 5:23-cv-00220- BO-BM (E.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2023). 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 3