Marian Shearin v. United States - Civil Action Affirmance

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 2nd, 2026

Detected March 3rd, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of Marian Shearin's civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court modified the lower court's order to explicitly state the dismissal was without prejudice.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court's decision to dismiss Marian Shearin's amended civil action. The dismissal was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court modified the original order to clarify that the dismissal is without prejudice, aligning with legal precedent that courts lacking jurisdiction cannot adjudicate claims on their merits.

This decision clarifies the procedural aspect of the dismissal for the plaintiff. For legal professionals and courts, it reinforces the principle that dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice. No new compliance actions are required for regulated entities as this is a specific case resolution.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 25-2112 MARIAN SPENCER SHEARIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the Unit ed States Distri ct Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Se nior District Judge. (4:23- cv -00107-RAJ-DE M) Submitted: February 2 6, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLE BAUM, Circuit Judge s, and FLOYD, Senior Circui t Judge. Affirmed as modified b y unpublished per curia m opinion. Marian Spencer Shear in, Appellant Pro Se. Garry Daniel Hartl ieb, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES AT TORNEY, Norfolk, Vi rginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Marian Spencer Shearin appeals the district court’s order dismissing her amended civil action for lack of subject matt er jurisdiction. We have r eviewed the record an d find no reversible error. But we note th e district court’s order does not reflect whether th e dismissal is made with or without prejudice. Accordingly, we m odify the district court’ s order, Shearin v. United States, No. 4:2 3- cv -00107-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. July 23, 2025), to reflect dismissal of Shearin ’s action w ithout prejudice, see G oldman v. Brink, 41 F.4th 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting that dismis sal for lack of subject mat ter jurisdiction must be without prejudice because court lackin g jurisdiction “has n o power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits” (in ternal quotation marks omitte d)), and affirm the order as modified, see id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2106; Rohan v. Networks Present ations LLC, 375 F.3d 266, 268 n.1 (4th Cir. 2004) (“We are entitled to affirm the [district] court’s judgment o n alternate grounds, if su ch grounds are appar ent from the record.” (c itation modified)). We dispense with or al argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the material s before this court and argume nt would not aid th e decisional process. AFFIRMED AS MODI FIED