Full text
John Hudson v. N. Saine
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6786 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6786
JOHN SCOTT HUDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
N. SAINE; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; MS. STRICKLAND,
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. (5:19-ct-03380-M)
Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: November 7, 2023
Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Scott Hudson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-6786 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
John Scott Hudson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
We affirm.
We review de novo the dismissal of an action under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to
state a claim, accepting as true all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and
applying the same standards applicable in reviewing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal.
Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 2017). To survive dismissal, “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see Bazemore v. Best Buy, 957 F.3d 195, 200 (4th Cir. 2020) (requiring “factual
allegations that raise a right to relief above the speculative level” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Likewise, we review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 991 F.3d 512, 516 (4th
Cir. 2021). When determining jurisdiction from the face of the complaint, “[w]e accept
the facts of the complaint as true as we would in context of a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.”
See Kenny v. Wilson, 885 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2018).
We have reviewed the district court’s order and find no reversible error in the
district court’s dismissal of Hudson’s First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to state
a claim. See Martin v. Duffy, 977 F.3d 294, 299 (4th Cir. 2020) (detailing elements of
claim); Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 501 (4th
Cir. 2005) (describing causation requirement). We also find no reversible error in the *3 USCA4 Appeal: 21-6786 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
district court’s dismissal of Hudson’s Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due
process claims as jurisdictionally barred. See Lawyer v. Hilton Head Pub. Serv. Dist. No.
1, 220 F.3d 298, 301-02 (4th Cir. 2000) (discussing Tax Injunction Act and related comity
principle) ∗; Folio v. City of Clarksburg, 134 F.3d 1211, 1214 (4th Cir. 1998) (defining
“plain, speedy and efficient” remedy); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 105-241.7, 105-241.11
to 105-241.17 (providing mechanism for obtaining review of improper assessment and
collection of taxes). Because the latter claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, however, they were subject to dismissal without prejudice. S. Walk at
Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th
Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, as modified to reflect a dismissal
of Hudson’s Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process claims without
prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. 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 AS MODIFIED
∗ Although the district court did not address the comity principle, we may “affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on the record, notwithstanding that the reason was not addressed below.” Earle v. Shreves, 990 F.3d 774, 781 n.3 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 358 (2021); see also Gwozdz v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 846 F.3d 738, 743 (4th Cir. 2017) (describing comity principle’s jurisdictional bar to claims for damages that challenge state taxation).