Donna Marie Conner v. Xfinity, United States General, et al.

PER CURIAM: Donna Marie Conner appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). The district court dismissed with prejudice all of Conner’s claims except for her claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and granted her leave to file an amended complaint on only that claim. Conner filed an amended complaint, and the district court again dismissed the TCPA claim. Conner appealed, and we dismissed the appeal because the district court had not resolved one of Conner’s claims. Conner v. Xfinity, No. 24-1145, 2024 WL 2768349, at *1 (4th Cir. May 30,2024). We remanded for the district court to resolve that claim. Id. On remand, the district court dismissed without prejudice the unresolved claim. Conner then noted this timely appeal, and we possess jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (“[W]hen a district court dismisses a complaint or all claims without providing leave to amend, ... the order dismissing the complaint is final and appealable.”). Having reviewed the record and Conner’s many submissions on appeal, we discern no reversible error in the dismissal of Conner’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii); 1 Conner’s notice of appeal designates the district court’s order dismissing her complaint and the district court’s order on remand dismissing her unresolved claim. Insofar as Conner might also seek review of the district court’s order dismissing her amended complaint, she has demonstrated no reversible error in that order. 2 Conner seeks to raise many new claims on appeal, but we decline to consider them in the first instance. See Milla v. Brown, 109 F.4th 222,234 (4th Cir. 2024) (“Issues raised (Continued)