Case Name: Charles M. PERSSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREDIT BUREAU OF SOUTHERN VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Americredit Financial Services, Incorporated; Regional Acceptance Corporation; Victory Nissan of Richmond, Incorporated, Parties in Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-27
Citations: 51 F. App'x 424
Docket Number: No. 02-2212
Parties: Charles M. PERSSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREDIT BUREAU OF SOUTHERN VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Americredit Financial Services, Incorporated; Regional Acceptance Corporation; Victory Nissan of Richmond, Incorporated, Parties in Interest.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 424–424

Head Matter:
Charles M. PERSSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREDIT BUREAU OF SOUTHERN VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Americredit Financial Services, Incorporated; Regional Acceptance Corporation; Victory Nissan of Richmond, Incorporated, Parties in Interest.
No. 02-2212.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2002.
Decided Nov. 27, 2002.
Charles M. Persson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Persson appeals from orders of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denying Persson's requests for the issuance of a subpoena relating to a complaint he filed in the District Court for the Western District of Virginia. He also asks this court to direct the Western District to hold his case in abeyance pending resolution of this appeal. Our review of the record and the pertinent district court dockets reveals that Persson's underlying complaint was dismissed with prejudice in the Western District following a settlement reached by the parties. This action renders Persson's claim before this court no longer justiciable. Accordingly, we deny Persson's motion to direct that his case be held in abeyance, and we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842 (4th Cir.1986). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.