USCA4 Appeal: 25-1339 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1339

GEORGE BALDWIN HUTCHINSON, JR., G. Baldwin:(House of Hutchinson):man, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 81ST READINESS DIVISION FT JACKSON SC, (Wrongdoers); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:23-cv-06178-MGL)

Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 29, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Baldwin Hutchinson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Todd Stuart Timmons, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1339 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: George Baldwin Hutchinson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing with prejudice Hutchinson’s civil action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Although our review of the record has revealed no reversible error, we conclude that the Bivens claims should have been dismissed without prejudice because, as the district court found, each Bivens claim either was barred by federal sovereign immunity or failed for lack of standing. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal for lack of standing—or any other 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.”); accord Lancaster v. Sec’y of Navy, 109 F.4th 283, 295 (4th Cir. 2024) (explaining that, where federal sovereign immunity bars claim, dismissal without prejudice is warranted).

Accordingly, we deny Hutchinson’s motion for a default judgment and affirm the district court’s order as modified to reflect that the Bivens claims are dismissed without prejudice. Hutchinson v. United States, No. 3:23-cv-06178-MGL (D.S.C. Mar. 17, 2025).

We deny as moot Hutchinson’s motions to expedite, to remand, and to schedule oral argument. 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