Court Opinion

ID: 9410656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-22 21:00:35.983247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:59.284264
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6291      Doc: 11         Filed: 07/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6291

        WILLIE LEE MARTIN, III,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        MARY LOCKLEAR; TODD ISHEE,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03021-BO)

        Submitted: May 25, 2023                                           Decided: July 21, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Willie Lee Martin, III, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6291       Doc: 11         Filed: 07/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Willie Lee Martin, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Martin was released from incarceration

        during the pendency of this appeal; thus, his appeal of his request for injunctive relief is

        moot. See Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009). We have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal of Martin’s other claims.

        Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part as moot and affirm the remainder of the district

        court’s order. Martin v. Cooper, No. 5:22-ct-03021-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 2023). 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 IN PART,
                                                                                AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                      2