Rozain Chitty v. Liberty University , 547 F. App'x 299 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2041
ROZAIN ELIZABETH CASIE CHITTY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:13-cv-00043-NKM)
Submitted: November 14, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Yurachek, MARK ALLEN YURACHEK & ASSOCIATES, Falls
Church, Virginia, for Appellant. Calvin Wooding Fowler, Jr.,
Joseph Ray Pope, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rozain Elizabeth Casie Chitty appeals the district
court’s order dismissing her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. On appeal, Chitty’s sole argument is
that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint
without providing her notice of the court’s intention and an
opportunity to respond. But under § 1915(e)(2)(B), which
governs proceedings in forma pauperis, a district court is
directed to dismiss a case “at any time” if the court finds that
the case or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim, or seeks damages from a party who is immune from such
relief. Because Chitty moved for and was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, § 1915(e)(2)(B) authorized the sua
sponte dismissal effected by the district court. See Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007) (noting Prison Litigation Reform
Act allows sua sponte dismissal of in forma pauperis case for
failure to state a claim, among other grounds). We therefore
conclude that Chitty’s argument lacks merit, 1 and we affirm the
district court’s judgment.
1
Chitty’s brief does not contend that any of her claims
did, in fact, sufficiently state a claim for relief, and we
therefore do not address that issue. See Suarez-Valenzuela v.
Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (holding issues not
raised in argument section of opening brief are abandoned).
2
We deny Liberty University’s motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. 2 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
2
Even if the district court’s dismissal without prejudice
would otherwise be a non-appealable interlocutory order, see
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993), the applicable two-year statute
of limitations period on Chitty’s fraud claims has passed. Va.
Code Ann. § 8.01-243(A) (2013 Cum. Supp.). Thus, we conclude
that the district court’s dismissal order is effectively final.
3