Shing v. MD Developmental Disabilities Administration, 698 F. App'x 70

Doreen and May Shing (pro se) sued Maryland defendants alleging negligent failure to provide Medicaid/waiver services, invoking § 1983, the ADA, and federal Medicaid regulations; they sought damages and injunctive relief.
The district court initially dismissed the complaint without prejudice for insufficient allegations of subject-matter jurisdiction; this court dismissed an interlocutory appeal and remanded, directing leave to amend.
On remand the Shings filed an amended complaint (damages under ADA, Medicaid regs, and Maryland law) and a separate action seeking injunctive relief under 42 C.F.R. § 441.740; the court later consolidated the actions and the Shings added a § 1983 injunctive claim.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and alternatively Rule 12(b)(6); the district court dismissed the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, entering dismissal with prejudice.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal de novo, concluded the filings met the low threshold to invoke federal jurisdiction but nonetheless affirmed dismissal of the federal claims on the alternative ground of failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court also reviewed and rejected challenges to consolidation and to the district court’s extension of time for defendants, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists over the Shings' federal claims	Shing contends allegations invoking § 1983, ADA, and federal Medicaid rules suffice to establish federal-question jurisdiction	Defendants contend the claims are essentially state-law negligence and thus lack a federal question	Court: filings met low threshold to invoke § 1331, but jurisdictional existence is not dispositive because claims fail on the merits
Whether federal claims state a claim on which relief can be granted	Shing argues the amended complaint alleges facts showing discrimination, neglect, and statutory/regulatory violations	Defendants argue plaintiffs fail to plead the elements of any federal cause of action	Held: Plaintiffs' federal claims are insufficient and are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6))
Whether district court abused discretion by consolidating the two actions	Shing objects to consolidation	Defendants support consolidation for efficiency	Held: No abuse of discretion in consolidation
Whether district court abused discretion by granting defendants extension to file motion to dismiss	Shing objects to extension	Defendants sought additional time to respond	Held: No abuse of discretion in granting extension

Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93 (4th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2012) (when failure to state a claim can support a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (federal courts must address jurisdictional questions before merits)
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015) (leave to amend after jurisdictional dismissal)
Hawes v. Network Sols., Inc., 337 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2003) (appellate court may affirm on any ground in the record)
Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for consolidation decisions)
Arnold v. E. Air Lines, 712 F.2d 899 (4th Cir. 1983) (standard for review of procedural scheduling decisions)
S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2013) (a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction cannot adjudicate merits or enter judgment)