USCA4 Appeal: 22-1687 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1687

TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG BLACK POLITICAL CAUCUS OF CHARLOTTE; MEKO CHOSEN; DOES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cv-00236-MOC-DSC)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Fonville McAdoo, MCADOO LORICK, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1687 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel appeals the district court’s order granting

McDaniel’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, reviewing her civil complaint pursuant

to

(e)(2)(B), and dismissing the complaint for want of subject matter

jurisdiction. Questions concerning subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by

the parties or sua sponte by the court. Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc.,

, 390 (4th Cir. 2004). We review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de

novo. Rich v. United States,

(4th Cir. 2015) (providing standard of

review).

Upon review, we discern no error in the district court’s conclusion that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction over McDaniel’s complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s dismissal order. * McDaniel v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Black Pol. Caucus of

Charlotte, No. 3:22-cv-00236-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. June 22, 2022). 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 response to the arguments advanced in McDaniel’s informal brief, we observe that (a) because the district court dismissed without prejudice, McDaniel may amend and refile her complaint to add whatever claims she believes would restore the court’s jurisdiction; and (b) our review of the record revealed no basis on which to question Judge Cogburn’s impartiality in this matter.

2