Clayton T. Jones v. Jeanette W. McBride

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6218
CLAYTON T. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEANETTE W. MCBRIDE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (3:20-cv-04063-TMC)
Submitted: February 25, 2022 Decided: March 7, 2022
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clayton T. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Clayton T. Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.1
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Although the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine2 applies to state court decisions, not ongoing state court proceedings, see Hulsey
v. Cisa, 947 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 2020), we may affirm on any basis apparent from the
record, see United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017). Because Jones did
not state a non-frivolous claim that his due process rights were violated, we affirm the
district court’s order. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (explaining
plaintiff raising denial of access claim “must identify a nonfrivolous, arguable underlying
claim” in order to adequately plead his claim (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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
1 Although the district court dismissed the action without prejudice, mere
amendment cannot cure the deficiencies identified by the district court, and we thus have
jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir.
2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021).
2 D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263
U.S. 413 (1923).

-- 2 of 2 --