Adria Crump v. Samuel Cherry, No. 20-1085 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1085 ADRIA CRUMP, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAMUEL CHERRY; MARY ELIZABETH WATKINS; QUINN BROOCK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00786-RDB) Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020 Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adria Crump, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adria Crump appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Crump v. Cherry, No. 1:19-cv-00786-RDB (D. Md. Jan. 15, 2020). However, because the dismissal was for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we modify the judgment 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 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal for . . . [a] defect in subject matter jurisdiction[] must be one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.”). 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.