USCA4 Appeal: 24-6110 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6110

WILLIAM LAYTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARTER, a/k/a Jane Doe, Medical Administrator; REINER, a/k/a Jane Doe, LPN, Physician for SISP, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00584-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 28, 2024

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Layton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6110 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: William Layton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s prior order to resubmit his complaint with a signature. Prior to filing his notice of appeal, Layton filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion in the district court, asserting that the court failed to provide Layton a copy of his original complaint to sign and resubmit. On appeal, Layton raises the same arguments as his Rule 59(e) motion and seeks reopening of his case. After Layton noted this appeal, the district court granted Layton’s motion and vacated the dismissal order. As Layton has obtained the relief he seeks on appeal, his claim is mooted. See Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A change in factual circumstances can moot a case on appeal, such as when the plaintiff receives the relief sought”). Accordingly, we dismiss Layton’s appeal as moot. 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