Marcus Allison v. Alfredo Martell

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6194 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6194

MARCUS D. ALLISON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN ALFREDO MARTELL, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.

David C. Norton, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00757-DCN)

Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026

Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Daniel Allison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6194 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Marcus D. Allison seeks to appeal the district court’s December 2025 order accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and denying relief on Allison’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.

However, before Allison filed his notice of appeal, the district court granted Allison’s motion for reconsideration and vacated its December 2025 order in order to give Allison an opportunity to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

Allison thereafter filed objections to the report and recommendation, and his § 2254 petition remains pending before the district court.

Because the district court vacated the December 2025 order that Allison seeks to appeal, we conclude that his appeal is moot. See Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that “[a] case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome” and that “[a] court is deprived of jurisdiction over a case when the case becomes moot” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, because Allison’s appeal is moot, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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