Carol Mosca v. AMA ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-2118
    CAROL MOSCA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, c/o James L. Madara, MD, CEO & EVP;
    NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, c/o Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD;
    CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, c/o Rochelle P.
    Walensky, MD, MPH; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG
    ADMINISTRATION, c/o Janet Woodcock, MD, Acting Commissioner; UNITED
    STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, c/o Xavier
    Becerra, Secretary; UNITED STATES SURGEON GENERAL, c/o Rear Admiral
    Susan Orsega, Acting Surgeon General; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY, c/o Michael S. Regan, Administrator,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
    Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00144-MOC-WCM)
    Submitted: December 16, 2021                                Decided: December 17, 2021
    Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Carol Mosca, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Douglas Letzring, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; John Michael Durnovich, Charlotte,
    North Carolina, Andrew Harry Erteschik, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Carol Mosca appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action as
    frivolous and for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no
    reversible error. As the district court has repeatedly explained to Mosca, her allegations
    do not satisfy the requirements for Article III standing, which is necessary to support the
    district court’s jurisdiction over her action. See, e.g., Spokeo, Inc v. Robins, 
    578 U.S. 330
    ,
    338 (2016) (discussing standing requirements); Md. Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan, 
    971 F.3d 199
    , 212-13 (4th Cir. 2020) (same). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment,
    as modified to reflect a dismissal without prejudice.         See S. Walk at Broadlands
    Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 
    713 F.3d 175
    , 185 (4th Cir.
    2013) (“A dismissal for lack of standing . . . must be one without prejudice, because a court
    that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.”).
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-2118

Filed Date: 12/17/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/17/2021