UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1218

SOLON PHILLIPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS; JONATHAN A. AZRAEL; JOHN F. MUDD; DAVID RALPH; MATTHEW MILLS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Albert David Copperthite, Magistrate Judge. (1:19-cv-02427-ADC)

Submitted: January 19, 2022 Decided: March 2, 2022

Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified and affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Solon Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Michele J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, Brenda Gruss, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Solon Phillips appeals from the magistrate judge’s order on remand granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) motion to dismiss, dismissing count 5 of his amended civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissing count 6 of the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the magistrate judge’s determinations that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over count 5 and that count 6 failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal of count 5, however, should have been 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). We therefore modify the magistrate judge’s dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal of this count is without prejudice, affirm that dismissal as modified, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106, and affirm the magistrate judge’s dismissal of count 6. Phillips v. Md. Bd. of Law Exam’rs, No. 1:19-cv-02427-ADC (D. Md. Feb. 18, 2021). 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; AFFIRMED

* The magistrate previously dismissed Phillips’ 6-count amended civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). We affirmed the dismissal of counts 1 through 4, reversed the dismissal of counts 5 and 6, and remanded for further proceedings on those two counts. Phillips v. Md. Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 812 F. App’x 165, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 20-1057).