Michael E. De Blasis v. Samuel J. Deblasis, Ii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1469
MICHAEL E. DE BLASIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL J. DEBLASIS, II,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00771-JRR)
Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023
Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. De Blasis, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel J. DeBlasis, II, DECARO, DORAN,
SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, LLP, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael E. De Blasis appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion
to dismiss De Blasis’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman* doctrine. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error.
See Hulsey v. Cisa, 947 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review).
However, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be one without prejudice
“because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim
on the merits.” Goldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the
dismissal of De Blasis’ civil action is without prejudice and affirm the order as modified.
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
* D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S.
413 (1923).

-- 2 of 2 --