Youn-Faa Oliver Myles v. PAUL A. THOMPSON, Director, Constituent Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1069
YOUN-FAA OLIVER MYLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
CHARLES ALVAH SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL A. THOMPSON, Director, Constituent Services; WILLIAM K.
HAMMOND, Assistant Attorney General; CLARENCE K. LAM, Co-chair
Legislative Oversight,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01710-BAH)
Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Youn-Faa Oliver Myles, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Lynn Adams, Hyunjae Shin,
HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellee Paul A.
Thompson. Alexander James Greenspan, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee William
K. Hammond. Natalie R. Bilbrough, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee Clarence
K. Lam.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Youn-Faa Oliver Myles appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil claim
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
However, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. A dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice, “because a court that lacks jurisdiction has
no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.” S. Walk at Broadlands
Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc., v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185
(4th Cir. 2013). Therefore, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal
was without prejudice. See Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2022) (affirming
as modified where dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction).
Accordingly, we affirm as modified the district court’s order. 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

-- 3 of 3 --