Youn-Faa Myles v. Paul Thompson

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1069 Doc: 21 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1069 YOUN-FAA OLIVER MYLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, and CHARLES ALVAH SMITH, Plaintiff, v. PAUL A. THOMPSON, Director, Constituent Services; WILLIAM K. HAMMOND, Assistant Attorney General; CLARENCE K. LAM, Co-chair Legislative Oversight, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01710-BAH) Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025 Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1069 Doc: 21 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Youn-Faa Oliver Myles, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Lynn Adams, Hyunjae Shin, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellee Paul A. Thompson. Alexander James Greenspan, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee William K. Hammond. Natalie R. Bilbrough, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee Clarence K. Lam. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1069 Doc: 21 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Youn-Faa Oliver Myles appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. However, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice, “because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.” S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc., v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). Therefore, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice. See Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2022) (affirming as modified where dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction). Accordingly, we affirm as modified the district court’s order. 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