USCA4 Appeal: 22-6444 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6444

WILLIAM Z. BOLES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH E. LASSITER; JAMIE COBB; HARRIS ENZOR; BRADLEY N. FIELDS; SERGEANT JONES; FAUSTINA F. BROWN; SUPERINTENDENT DAY; SUPERINTENDENT CASSIDY; LIEUTENANT PATRICK; MR. HAMILTON; TODD E. ISHEE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:21-ct-03010-FL)

Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 28, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Z. Boles, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6444 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William Z. Boles seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a

preliminary injunction in his civil action against prison officials based on injuries he

suffered while incarcerated. Although the order was an appealable interlocutory order at

the time Boles filed his notice of appeal, see

(a)(1), the district court has

now entered a final order dismissing the complaint for failing to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted. Accordingly, we dismiss Boles’ appeal as moot. See Already, LLC

v. Nike, Inc.,

(2013) (“A case becomes moot . . . when the issues presented

are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (internal

quotation marks omitted)); Dex Media W., Inc. v. City of Seattle,

, 956 n.1

(9th Cir. 2012) (dismissing as moot appeal from denial of preliminary injunction where

district court had entered final judgment because “deciding the preliminary injunction

appeal would have no practical consequences”). 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