Lester Fletcher v. Ashton Carter

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1732
MR. LESTER D. FLETCHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ASHTON BALDWIN CARTER; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DEFENSE
COMMISSARY AGENCY DeCA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03897-PX)
Submitted: October 24, 2018 Decided: November 7, 2018
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, affirmed as modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lester D. Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lester D. Fletcher appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended
complaint alleging employment discrimination and retaliation and the court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Fletcher v. Carter, No. 8:15-cv-03897-PX (D. Md. Mar. 6, 2017; filed
Mar. 29, 2018 & entered Mar. 30, 2018). However, because the court dismissed
Fletcher’s age- and disability-related claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we
affirm that portion of the dismissal order as modified to reflect that the dismissal is
without prejudice. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at
Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal for . . . [a] defect in
subject matter jurisdiction[] 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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART
2