USCA4 Appeal: 24-6288 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6288

TRAVIS L. WATSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DETECTIVE ALTIZER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00934-LCB-LPA)

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6288 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Travis L. Watson appeals the district court’s amended order denying as moot his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion for relief from the court’s judgment in favor of Defendants in

Watson’s

action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Specifically, because Watson’s Rule 60 motion raised only a claim that this court

had already considered and rejected in affirming the underlying judgment, we conclude

that the district court did not err in deeming the motion moot. See Fleet Feet, Inc. v. NIKE,

Inc.,

(4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that mootness occurs when an event

transpiring while the matter is pending “makes it impossible for [the] court to grant

effective relief” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Lee Mem’l Hosp. v. Becerra,

(D.C. Cir. 2021) (Randolph, S.J., concurring) (noting that “a Rule 60(b) motion

raising only an issue already decided on appeal violates the mandate rule and the law-of-

the-case doctrine”); see

at 867 nn.2-3, 868 n.4 (collecting cases). Accordingly, we grant

Watson’s motion to exceed the length limitations for informal briefs, and we affirm the

district court’s order. Watson v. McPhatter, No. 1:17-cv-00934-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.

Mar. 12, 2024). 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