USCA4 Appeal: 23-6917 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6917

UMAR ADEYOLA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MOHAMED MOUBAREK; TOM GERA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SHITIZ SRIWASTAVA, M.D.; WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY,

Defendants - Appellees,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00781-TDC)

Submitted: January 3, 2025 Decided: January 13, 2025

Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Umar Adeyola, Appellant Pro Se. Vickie Elaine LeDuc, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6917 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Umar Adeyola appeals the district court’s orders granting West Virginia

University’s (WVU) and Shitiz Sriwastava’s motions to dismiss and granting Mohamed

Moubarek, Tom Gera, and the United States’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for

summary judgment on Adeyola’s complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act,

(b), 2671-2680 (FTCA), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971). Limiting our review of the record to

the issues raised in Adeyola’s informal brief, we have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey,

(4th Cir.

2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our

review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). *

We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction, a

dismissal for failure to state a claim, or a grant of summary judgment. Bulger v. Hurwitz,

(4th Cir. 2023) (subject matter jurisdiction); UMG Recordings, Inc. v.

Kurbanov,

(4th Cir. 2020) (personal jurisdiction); Rockville Cars, LLC

v. City of Rockville,

(4th Cir. 2018) (failure to state a claim); Dean v.

Jones,

(4th Cir. 2021) (summary judgment).

We discern no error in the district court’s conclusion that WVU is an arm of the

State of West Virginia and thus was immune from suit. See, e.g., W. Va. Univ. Bd. of

* Because Adeyola does not challenge the district court’s rejection of his claim against Moubarek in his informal brief, we decline to review that claim.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6917 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

Governors ex rel. W. Va. Univ. v. Rodriguez,

(N.D. W. Va.

2008). Nor did the district court err in finding that Adeyola did not adequately show the

court in Maryland had personal jurisdiction over Sriwastava, a WVU doctor. Sriwastava

is a citizen of West Virginia, is not licensed to practice medicine in Maryland, and did not

treat Adeyola in Maryland. There is no evidence that his treatment of Adeyola arose out

of Sriwastava’s purposeful activities directed at potential patients residing in Maryland.

And Sriwastava’s limited communications with Adeyola’s medical providers in Maryland

do not render it “constitutionally reasonable” to hale him into court in Maryland.

Consulting Eng’rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd.,

(4th Cir. 2009) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

As for Adeyola’s FTCA claim against the United States, our review of the record

reveals no error in the district court’s conclusion that Adeyola failed to show that he

properly exhausted that claim. See Est. of Van Emburgh ex rel. Van Emburgh v. United

States,

(4th Cir. 2024) (discussing FTCA’s exhaustion requirement).

Finally, we discern no error in the district court’s finding that Gera was immune from

Adeyola’s Bivens claim under

(a), as Gera was a member of the United

States Public Health Service and was acting within the scope his employment when he

treated Adeyola.

We observe, however, that the district court should have dismissed Adeyola’s

claims against Gera and the United States without prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. See Williams v. United States,

(4th Cir. 1995) (explaining

that when a court finds a jurisdictional bar to an FTCA claim, “rather than granting

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6917 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

summary judgment pursuant to [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 56(c), the district court should . . .

dismiss[] the [claim] for want of jurisdiction under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(1)”); see also

Goldman v. Brink,

(4th Cir. 2022) (noting a dismissal based on 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” (internal

quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders, as modified to reflect the

dismissal without prejudice of Adeyola’s claims against Gera and the United States. See

Abbott v. Pastides,

, 175 n.8 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting that we may “treat the

district court’s entry of summary judgment . . . as a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for want

of jurisdiction, and affirm on that basis”). 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

4