Tomlinson v. Roses Discount Stores - Affirmed
Summary
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of Brittany M. Tomlinson's civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court denied Tomlinson's motion to amend or correct her complaint and affirmed the lower court's order. The ruling was issued per curiam without oral argument.
What changed
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of Tomlinson's civil complaint, which had been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court also denied Tomlinson's pending motion to amend or correct her complaint.
Pro se litigants filing civil complaints in federal court should ensure their complaints clearly establish federal subject matter jurisdiction to avoid dismissal. Defendants in civil actions benefit from this ruling affirming procedural dismissal standards for jurisdictional deficiencies.
Archived snapshot
Apr 17, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2099
BRITTANY M. TOMLINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
ROSES DISCOUNT STORES; VARIETY WHOLESALERS, INC.; C. GILL FRAZIER, Vice President, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:24-cv-00696-M-BM) Submitted: March 26, 2026 Decided: April 16, 2026 Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brittany M. Tomlinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Brittany M. Tomlinson appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Tomlinson's civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tomlinson also moves to amend or correct her complaint. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Tomlinson's motion to amend and affirm the district court's order.
Tomlinson v. Roses Disc. Stores, No. 5:24-cv-00696-M-BM (E.D.N.C. Sep. 11, 2025). 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
Related changes
Get daily alerts for 4th Circuit Daily Opinions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from 4th Circuit.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when 4th Circuit Daily Opinions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.