# Jernice Hamilton v. Army Board for Corrections

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 22, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9396899

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 22, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9396899

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal

## Opinion text

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9396899. Public record. Not legal advice.