Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Black Political Caucus of Charlotte; Meko Chosen; Does

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1687
TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG BLACK POLITICAL CAUCUS OF
CHARLOTTE; MEKO CHOSEN; DOES,
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 of 2 --