Kristin Schelin v. Karl Malloy

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1700 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1700

KRISTIN E. SCHELIN; MARK A. WATSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, and MEGAN NAPIER; JAMES T. NAPIER; MICHAEL P. LAFAYETTE, Appellees, v. KARL LINARD MALLOY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:24-cv-00729-MHL)

Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karl Linard Malloy, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin A. Lake, MCDONALD, SUTTON & DUVAL, PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1700 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Karl Linard Malloy appeals the district court’s order dismissing as moot his appeals from 10 bankruptcy court orders quashing subpoenas and imposing sanctions. The district court dismissed the appeals as moot, reasoning that the hearings for which the subpoenas were issued had concluded and reversal of the bankruptcy court’s orders quashing the subpoenas would have no practical effect.

An appeal becomes moot when a court “is without the power to afford effective relief.” Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Cent. Transp., Inc., 841 F.2d 92, 96 (4th Cir. 1988). Although the hearings for which the witnesses were subpoenaed had concluded and reversal of the orders quashing subpoenas would not affect Malloy’s ability to present testimony by these witnesses, the orders from which Malloy appealed also imposed sanctions and Malloy challenged the sanctions on appeal to the district court.

Because the district court could grant Malloy some of the relief he requested—by vacating the sanctions orders—we find that the appeals were not moot.

We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings, expressing no opinion as to the ultimate disposition of Malloy’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED