USCA4 Appeal: 23-1962 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1962

RALPH L. HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FAY SERVICING, LLC, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Robert S. Ballou, District Judge. (6:22-cv-00040-RSB)

Submitted: March 12, 2024 Decided: March 20, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph L. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Ryan Hodge, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1962 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Ralph L. Hayes appeals the district court’s April 3, 2023, order dismissing his amended complaint and August 29, 2023, order denying his emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Limiting our review to the issues raised in Hayes’ informal brief and supplements thereto, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. * Hayes v. Fay Servicing, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00040-RSB (W.D. Va., Apr. 3, 2023; Aug. 29, 2023). We also deny Hayes’ motions for injunctive relief pending appeal (ECF Nos. 16, 35, 38), petition to cease foreclosure sale (ECF No. 22), and emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (ECF No. 30). 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

* Insofar as Fay Servicing, LLC, contends that Hayes’ appeal from the district court’s April 3, 2023, dismissal order is untimely, we reject that contention. Because Hayes timely moved for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) after the entry of the dismissal order, the 30-day appeal period for the dismissal order was extended until the resolution of that motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).