Solon Phillips v. Maryland Board of Law Examiners

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1218
SOLON PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS; JONATHAN A. AZRAEL;
JOHN F. MUDD; DAVID RALPH; MATTHEW MILLS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Albert David Copperthite, Magistrate Judge. (1:19-cv-02427-ADC)
Submitted: January 19, 2022 Decided: March 2, 2022
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified and affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Solon Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Michele J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General,
Brenda Gruss, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Solon Phillips appeals from the magistrate judge’s order on remand granting
Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) motion to dismiss, dismissing count 5 of his
amended civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissing count 6 of the
action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.* We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error in the magistrate judge’s determinations that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over count 5 and that count 6 failed to state a claim on which
relief could be granted. The dismissal of count 5, however, should have been 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). We therefore modify the magistrate
judge’s dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal of this count is without prejudice, affirm
that dismissal as modified, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106, and affirm the magistrate judge’s
dismissal of count 6. Phillips v. Md. Bd. of Law Exam’rs, No. 1:19-cv-02427-ADC
(D. Md. Feb. 18, 2021). 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;
AFFIRMED
* The magistrate previously dismissed Phillips’ 6-count amended civil action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction under D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
(1983), and Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). We affirmed the dismissal of
counts 1 through 4, reversed the dismissal of counts 5 and 6, and remanded for further
proceedings on those two counts. Phillips v. Md. Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 812 F. App’x 165,
165-66 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 20-1057).

-- 2 of 2 --