Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
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.
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 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
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1902
Decided: January 22, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)