Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1790 MICHAEL E. KENNEDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00914-CCB) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Edward K
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1790 MICHAEL E. KENNEDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00914-CCB) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Edward Ke..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1790
MICHAEL E. KENNEDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00914-CCB)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Edward Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Neil R. White,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael E. Kennedy appeals the district court’s order
granting the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction Kennedy’s complaint alleging a claim
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680
(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, although we modify the dismissal order to
reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice, see S. Walk at
Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands,
LLC,
713 F.3d 175, 185 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2013), we affirm the
dismissal as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012); MM ex rel.
DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty.,
303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th
Cir. 2002). 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
2