Tigress McDaniel v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Black Political Caucus, No. 22-1687 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1687 TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG BLACK CHARLOTTE; MEKO CHOSEN; DOES, POLITICAL CAUCUS OF Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cv-00236-MOC-DSC) Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022 Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Fonville McAdoo, MCADOO LORICK, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel appeals the district court’s order granting McDaniel’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, reviewing her civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissing the complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Questions concerning subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the parties or sua sponte by the court. Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir. 2004). We review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Rich v. United States, 811 F.3d 140, 144 (4th Cir. 2015) (providing standard of review). Upon review, we discern no error in the district court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over McDaniel’s complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal order. * McDaniel v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Black Pol. Caucus of Charlotte, No. 3:22-cv-00236-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. June 22, 2022). 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 In response to the arguments advanced in McDaniel’s informal brief, we observe that (a) because the district court dismissed without prejudice, McDaniel may amend and refile her complaint to add whatever claims she believes would restore the court’s jurisdiction; and (b) our review of the record revealed no basis on which to question Judge Cogburn’s impartiality in this matter. * 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.
