Elvis Jones v. The Virginia ACA
Elvis Jones v. The Virginia ACA
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6267
ELVIS WAYNE JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE VIRGINIA ACA; QUINN MICHAEL, The Virginia Attorney; THE AMERICAN CORRECTION ASSOCIATION; UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00158-RAJ-RJK)
Submitted: April 22, 2021 Decided: April 26, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elvis Wayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Elvis Wayne Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his civil action for failure to comply with the district court’s prior order to submit an
amended
42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint and statutory filing fee or in forma pauperis
application within the allotted time. Before this appeal was filed, Jones submitted to the
district court an amended § 1983 complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Because Jones now has complied with the district court’s prior order and the
district court will obtain jurisdiction to review the filings upon disposition of this appeal,
we conclude there is no relief Jones could obtain by way of this appeal, and we dismiss the
appeal as moot. See CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne,
792 F.3d 469, 474(4th
Cir. 2015) (“Litigation may become moot during the pendency of an appeal when an
intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant effective relief to the prevailing
party.”). We further deny Jones’ motions for federal transit extension, summary judgment,
default judgment, and injunctive relief pending appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished