Court Opinion

ID: 9953351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 21:00:44.055132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:59.314079
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1962      Doc: 39         Filed: 03/20/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1962

        RALPH L. HAYES,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        FAY SERVICING, LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Lynchburg. Robert S. Ballou, District Judge. (6:22-cv-00040-RSB)

        Submitted: March 12, 2024                                         Decided: March 20, 2024

        Before RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ralph L. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Ryan Hodge, NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
        SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1962       Doc: 39         Filed: 03/20/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ralph L. Hayes appeals the district court’s April 3, 2023, order dismissing his

        amended complaint and August 29, 2023, order denying his emergency motion for a

        temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Limiting our review to the issues

        raised in Hayes’ informal brief and supplements thereto, we have reviewed the record and

        discern no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177

        (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules,

        our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s orders. * Hayes v. Fay Servicing, LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00040-RSB (W.D. Va., Apr. 3,

        2023; Aug. 29, 2023). We also deny Hayes’ motions for injunctive relief pending appeal

        (ECF Nos. 16, 35, 38), petition to cease foreclosure sale (ECF No. 22), and emergency

        motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (ECF No. 30). 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.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

               *
                 Insofar as Fay Servicing, LLC, contends that Hayes’ appeal from the district
        court’s April 3, 2023, dismissal order is untimely, we reject that contention. Because
        Hayes timely moved for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) after the entry of
        the dismissal order, the 30-day appeal period for the dismissal order was extended until the
        resolution of that motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).

                                                      2