David Onafeko v. Government ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-1807
    DAVID ABIODUN K.G.B. ONAFEKO,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
    NORTHERN IRELAND; MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, UNITED KINGDOM;
    CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE, UNITED KINGDOM; FEDERAL
    REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA; DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS, NIGERIA;
    DAVID OLANIYI OYEDEPO; FAITH TABERNACLE, OTA; WINNERS
    CHAPEL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 18-1863
    DAVID ABIODUN K.G.B. ONAFEKO,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
    NORTHERN IRELAND; MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, UNITED KINGDOM;
    CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE, UNITED KINGDOM; FEDERAL
    REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA; DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS, NIGERIA;
    DAVID OLANIYI OYEDEPO; FAITH TABERNACLE, OTA; WINNERS
    CHAPEL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00848-LMB-MSN)
    Submitted: November 13, 2018                                Decided: November 30, 2018
    Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Abiodun K.G.B. Onafeko, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, David Obiodun K.G.B. Onafeko appeals the district
    court’s orders dismissing his complaint * and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal
    of the religious organization defendants for lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1332 (2012), or in the district court’s denial of Onafeko’s Rule 59(e) motion.
    Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by the district
    court. Onafeko v. Gov’t of U.K., No. 1:18-cv-00848-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. July 10, 2018;
    July 17, 2018).
    The district court properly dismissed Onafeko’s claims against the government
    entity defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although the district court held
    that it lacked diversity jurisdiction, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction
    under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) (2012),
    28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1602-1607 (West 2006 & Supp. 2018); see Argentine Rep. v. Amerada
    Hess Shipping Corp., 
    488 U.S. 428
    , 434-39 (1989) (“[T]he FSIA [is] the sole basis for
    obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in our courts.”). We therefore affirm the
    district court’s dismissal of the government entity defendants for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction under the FSIA.
    *
    Although the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, we have
    jurisdiction over the appeal because it is clear that further amendment to the complaint
    would not cure the jurisdictional defect identified by the district court. See Goode v.
    Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 
    807 F.3d 619
    , 628 (4th Cir. 2015).
    3
    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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1807

Filed Date: 11/30/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/30/2018