Jaamal Fleming v. Virginia State University, No. 16-1364 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1364 JAAMAL FLEMING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY; KATRINA WALKER; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00268-MHL) Submitted: October 21, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaamal Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Liza Shawn Simmons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jaamal dismissing Fleming his jurisdiction on appeals civil the from action basis the for of district lack of Eleventh court’s subject Amendment order matter immunity. The district court did not reversibly err in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Fleming’s complaint, and we reject his arguments on appeal to the contrary. dismissal, however, should have been The court’s without prejudice. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). We therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal of Fleming’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without prejudice, and affirm the dismissal as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012); MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty., 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.