Case Name: Alonzo Dennis COPELAND, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SHROM/RN, Registered Nurse; A. Freeman, Registered Nurse; C/O Clark, Lieutenant; Estate of Doctor Warren, Defendants-Appellees, and Ms. Massenburg, ex. Institutional Ombudsman; Ms. C. Boone, ex. Institutional Ombudsman; MR. R. Woodson, Regional Ombudsman; Doctor Warren, Physician/Doctor, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-18
Citations: 588 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 14-7044
Parties: Alonzo Dennis COPELAND, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SHROM/RN, Registered Nurse; A. Freeman, Registered Nurse; C/O Clark, Lieutenant; Estate of Doctor Warren, Defendants-Appellees, and Ms. Massenburg, ex. Institutional Ombudsman; Ms. C. Boone, ex. Institutional Ombudsman; MR. R. Woodson, Regional Ombudsman; Doctor Warren, Physician/Doctor, Defendants.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 588
Pages: 238–238

Head Matter:
Alonzo Dennis COPELAND, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SHROM/RN, Registered Nurse; A. Freeman, Registered Nurse; C/O Clark, Lieutenant; Estate of Doctor Warren, Defendants-Appellees, and Ms. Massenburg, ex. Institutional Ombudsman; Ms. C. Boone, ex. Institutional Ombudsman; MR. R. Woodson, Regional Ombudsman; Doctor Warren, Physician/Doctor, Defendants.
No. 14-7044.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2014.
Alonzo Dennis Copeland, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alonzo Dennis Copeland, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint as time-barred. The district court has granted Copeland's Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion, vacated its dismissed order, and the complaint reinstated. Accordingly, we dismiss the 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.