Filed: Dec. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1760 KATHARINE B. DILLON, Plaintiff – Appellant, and VINCENT ARTHUR BUTLER; JOAN M. PATE, Plaintiffs, v. THERESA MARIE BUTLER; PATRICIA B. GUIN, individually and as Executor of the Estate of DAVID R. GUIN; REGINA B. SRIRAMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00424-WO-JLW) Submi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1760 KATHARINE B. DILLON, Plaintiff – Appellant, and VINCENT ARTHUR BUTLER; JOAN M. PATE, Plaintiffs, v. THERESA MARIE BUTLER; PATRICIA B. GUIN, individually and as Executor of the Estate of DAVID R. GUIN; REGINA B. SRIRAMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00424-WO-JLW) Submit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1760
KATHARINE B. DILLON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
VINCENT ARTHUR BUTLER; JOAN M. PATE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THERESA MARIE BUTLER; PATRICIA B. GUIN, individually and as
Executor of the Estate of DAVID R. GUIN; REGINA B. SRIRAMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00424-WO-JLW)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katharine B. Dillon, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Terry Graebe,
GRAEBE HANNA & SULLIVAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Katharine B. Dillon appeals from the district court’s orders
dismissing her civil complaint with prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and denying her motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, she does not challenge the jurisdictional
determination, but contends that the district court should have
dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
Because a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is 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), we
affirm the dismissal order as modified to reflect that the
dismissal is without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). 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