NIVENS v. HENSLEE (2021)

Stephen Nivens appeals the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Although we discern no reversible error, we conclude that the court should have dismissed the malpractice claim without prejudice. See Darcangelo v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 292 F.3d 181, 196 (4th Cir. 2002) (“Ordinarily, when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed without prejudice as well.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect a dismissal without prejudice as to the malpractice claim, and we otherwise affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nivens v. Henslee, No. 1:20-cv-02898-SAG, 2020 WL 6044324 (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2020). 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.