USCA4 Appeal: 24-1201      Doc: 16         Filed: 07/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 2




                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                              No. 24-1201


        KRISTIN E. SCHELIN; MARK A. WATSON,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellees,

                     v.

        KARL L. MALLOY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.



        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00058-DJN)


        Submitted: July 25, 2024                                          Decided: July 29, 2024


        Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.


        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


        Karl Linard Malloy, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Lawrence Perkins, ECKERT
        SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.


        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1201         Doc: 16      Filed: 07/29/2024     Pg: 2 of 2




        PER CURIAM:

               Karl L. Malloy appeals the district court’s order dismissing as moot his appeal from

        the bankruptcy court’s January 11, 2024, order denying his motion for a stay pending

        appeal. The district court dismissed the appeal as moot because the bankruptcy court issued

        a corrected order denying Malloy’s motion for a stay pending appeal and specifically

        stating that the new order “shall supersede and replace” the January 11, 2024, order. We

        have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s order. Schelin v. Malloy, No. 3:24-cv-00058-DJN (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2024); see

        Incumaa v. Ozmint, 

 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth principles of appellate

        mootness). 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




                                                    2