Bryant E. Davis, a/k/a Bryant Davidson v. Darius Horton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6299
BRYANT E. DAVIS, a/k/a Bryant Davidson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DARIUS HORTON; EXPRESS FUNERAL FUNDING, LLC; HARTFORD LIFE
INSURANCE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY; FIDELITY
WORKPLACE SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Fidelity Investment Company;
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES;
ROBERT DEAN, Warden; SHANAE ROSS, Security Chief; TAKOR OBEN,
Lieutenant; OLAN OWALABI, Lieutenant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-00078-PJM)
Submitted: October 28, 2024 Decided: December 19, 2024
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryant E. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Diana Lee, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Brian Patrick Downey,
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Eric

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Matthew Rigatuso, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Bryant E. Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and state law claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
The court’s dismissal of some claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, 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
that portion of the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice and
affirm the dismissal as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. We affirm the remainder of the
district court’s order. Davis v. Horton, No. 1:23-cv-00078-PJM (D. Md. filed Feb. 27,
2024, & entered Feb. 28, 2024). We also deny Davis’s motion to rescind his payments
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 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 --