Calvin Norton v. Columbus County Dept. of S.S., No. 18-1357 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1357 CALVIN TYRONE NORTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COLUMBUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, a government body politic and corporate; ALGERNON MCKENZIE, in individual and his official capacity as Director for Columbus County Social Services; DAVID S. TEDDER, in his individual and his official capacity as attorney for Columbus County Department of Social Services; KIMBERLY WILLIAMS, in her individual and her official capacity as Child Support Enforcement Supervisor for Columbus County Department of Social Services; CHALISSE NEELEY, in her individual and her official capacity as Child Support Establishment Supervisor for Columbus County Department of Social Services; JIMMY HAYNES, in his individual and official capacity as Child Support Enforcement for Columbus County Department of Social Services; KELLY BATTEN, in her individual and official capacity as Child Support Enforcement for Columbus County Department of Social Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:17-cv-00171-BR) Submitted: August 14, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decided: September 5, 2018 Calvin Tyrone Norton, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley O. Wood, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Tyrone Norton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman ∗ doctrine. We have reviewed the record and find no error in the district court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Norton’s action. See Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for Charles Cty., Md., 827 F.3d 314, 319-20 (4th Cir. 2016); Davani v. Va. Dep’t of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 719 (4th Cir. 2006). However, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be one without prejudice. S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice and affirm as modified for the reasons stated by the district court. Norton v. Columbus Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 7:17-cv-00171-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 2018); see also 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 ∗ Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). 3
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.
