Full text
TeRay Bingham v. Natalee Bingham
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1902
TERAY BINGHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NATALEE ECOLA SANDRA BE BINGHAM; PAULETTE WILSON; BARRY WALDMAN, Esquire; HARVEY LATNEY, Esquire; KRISTIE L. KANE, Esquire, Guardian Ad Litem; HONORABLE JOHN E. FRANKLIN; HONORABLE HERBERT M. HEWITT; JOHN DOES 1-100; JANE DOES 1- 100,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00395-LO-TCB)
Submitted: January 17, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2019
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
TeRay Bingham, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Howard Ross, Nerissa Neal Rouzer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Laurie Kirkland, BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, PC, Fairfax, Virginia; Julie Smith Palmer, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia, for
Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *3 PER CURIAM:
TeRay Bingham appeals the district court’s orders (1) dismissing his civil complaint as barred by the Rooker-Feldman * doctrine and, alternatively, dismissing claims against some defendants based on judicial immunity and against the remaining defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bingham’s state claims; and (3) denying his motion for reconsideration. Although Bingham’s claims against Natalee Bingham, Paulette Wilson, and Barry Waldman did not seek to invalidate the related state court judgment and therefore were unaffected by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for Charles Cty., 827 F.3d 314, 319-20 (4th Cir. 2016) (discussing application of Rooker-Feldman doctrine), we affirm based on the alternative reasons stated by the district court.
Furthermore, because the district court properly dismissed Bingham’s federal claims, we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. See Farlow v. Wachovia Bank of N.C., N.A., 259 F.3d 309, 316-17 (4th Cir. 2001) (discussing district court’s discretion to dismiss pendant state law claims without prejudice after resolving all federal claims in defendant’s favor). Although we affirm the district court’s judgment, we modify the judgment to reflect that the state claims and the claims dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed without prejudice. We dispense with oral argument
* Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.