Whether the district court properly dismissed Donna Marie Conner's civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

No question identified. : 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 TCP A 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) 2 io! waivailo biebnsia gnininlqxa) (ViO£ aiO ili-b) 8££ ,Q€£ bE.H 828 ,xJjuG .v ntnrM □VA/V .w xgcMi ;(toJmn3 ad yem loilai rfoirfvz noqu ntfcfo s aiBia ot awliel io! Inazimaib Imirnaib iol waivailo biEbnsla gnfrriBlqxo) (fcCOS .iiO rfih) 2?-b2£ ,£2£ bf-.H dVE /vanurfi baaaimaib overt blnorta twoo iarrtaib art) lerfi jovowod .aviaado oW .(vtiiovnl no baaed ot ^imriroqqo ns babivoiq ton anw aria rfairfv/ tol amido 8*ianfio3 aoibniarq iirorttiw bE.H 2£8 .moUnsdufi, .v gnVA a<& .nrisla AHOT iarf io! avca aminlo tarflo Ufi\.a.i .bnoms bluoria xllxrranag iniclqinoo ae oiqlo ieaairnaib ierft grtixingoaai) (dIOS .*»□ rfl£) 2££ ,dO£ aaoaab ion bnarrw ot YiinoiioqqoUbnielq avig ion bib Hugo tohlaibli 33ibu[aiq iuorfiiw ad icrfi ... Aiirtt ton ob aW“) 82£ te bE.H dVE .xg^VL ;(alitifl ad bluow inambnsniB yrtv? rftiw Isaaunaib b as atmaqo ot... (i)(fl)(£X 3K I® I § lobntt leaainiaib s babnatni zatngnoD .(’’.aaibiqaiq baimoqqtj avert bluorta tinoo ianteib art) Jsrft airranwgw a’lannoO iaojpi oafs aW avert blijoda frntoa ianiaib art) terfi bnc .lent vuqc ot batiitna esw arfa ierft ,iart io! laanuoa gniwaivai) (E£0£ .ii3 rfth) Ed I ,121 dtlvl dd ,mu\\o£k>YA .v wngaYA .llaaii baauaai rttd) EOb ,VQE b€.H 88l» .v cjnoV ;(noiiarjaib to sands tot noitorn feainailo Isinab ddQ ,£d<? b£.H b!8 ,znoram?. .v vjWjV. Xinsr/wgis lent <UJ(.TBlifnrs gtuiaatpi) (V00£ .iiO gniwaivai bns a livia ni hanuoalo inamtnioqqs io! bwbniite gnrtcta) (V82! .ti3 rith) .(tioilsnaaib^o oauds io! lr>inab Innortqaaxa inaads baiabianoa ion yllBianag oib icaqqa 710 omit iarrft dib io! . .f'^aattGtaatvaiia E Accordingly, we deny all of Conner ’s pending motions save for her motion to submit this case on the briefs (ECF No. 15), which we grant. 3 We also affirm the district court ’s orders but modify the orders to reflect a dismissal without prejudice except as to Conner ’s TCP A claim. 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 MODIFI