stating standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal
How later courts described this case
- stating standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2121 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2121
JERNICE HAMILTON, a/k/a/ Garnaris Hamilton,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTIONS, Military Records; DENNIS WILLIAM
DINGLE, Director 1073592077; CHARLES M. MARTIN, Chair Person,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00195-BHH)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jernice Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2121 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jernice Hamilton appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Hamilton’s pro se civil action. We have reviewed the record de novo and identified no
error in the district court’s decision to grant Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion
to dismiss. See Bulger v. Hurwitz, 62 F.4th 127, 135 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of
review for a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal
order. Hamilton v. Army Bd. for Corrs., No. 2:21-cv-00195-BHH (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 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
2