Jianyi Zhang v. Sethuraman Panchanathan

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1256
JIANYI ZHANG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN, In his official capacity as the Director of the
National Science Foundation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01571-LMB-LRV)
Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024
Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jianyi Zhang, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jianyi Zhang appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint with
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Zhang’s informal brief
does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)
(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is
limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). To the extent that Zhang challenges the district
court’s decision to dismiss his claim rather than granting leave to amend, a court does not
abuse its discretion “by declining to grant a motion [for leave to amend] that was never
properly made.” Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharms. Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 631 (4th Cir. 2008).
However, because the basis of the court’s dismissal of the complaint was a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal must be without prejudice. Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th
587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) (“A dismissal for lack of standing—or any defect in subject matter
jurisdiction—must be one without prejudice, because a court has no power to adjudicate
and dispose of a claim on the merits.” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order as modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. 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 of 2 --