USCA4 Appeal: 23-1481 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1481

UNITED SOURCE ONE, INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DOMINIC FRANK,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-02309-JKB)

Submitted: March 12, 2024 Decided: March 14, 2024

Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Steven N. Leitess, Pierce C. Murphy, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Dominic Frank, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1481 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

United Source One, Inc. (“US1”), appeals the district court’s order denying US1’s

motion for default judgment and sua sponte dismissing its complaint. On appeal, US1

solely argues that the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the complaint without

granting leave to amend.

Before a district court sua sponte dismisses a complaint, it “must . . . afford[] notice

and an opportunity to amend the complaint or otherwise respond.” Robertson v. Anderson

Mill Elementary Sch.,

(4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court did not follow this procedure, and the faults it found in the complaint are

the type that could conceivably be remedied in an amended complaint. Moreover, had

Appellee not been in default and filed his own motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6), US1 would have been entitled to amend its complaint as a matter of course. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing

US1’s complaint without granting leave to amend. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of

the district court’s order denying US1’s motion for default judgment, * vacate the portion

of the order dismissing the complaint, and remand with instructions to allow US1 to file an

amended complaint.

* We affirm this portion of the district court’s order because US1 does not challenge it in its opening brief. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC,

(4th Cir. 2017).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1481 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

3