Court Opinion

ID: 9961893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:38.510184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:15.409011
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2196      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2196

        MAJOR MIKE WEBB,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BRYAN PORTER, From the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01346-CMH-IDD)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Major Mike Webb, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2196      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Major Mike Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his application

        for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis

        is an immediately appealable ruling. Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339

        U.S. 844, 845 (1950). Because Webb recently paid the filing fee in full, however, his

        appeal of the denial of in forma pauperis status is now moot. See Holloway v. City of Va.

        Beach, 42 F.4th 266, 273 (4th Cir. 2022) (“A dispute is moot, depriving federal courts of

        jurisdiction to decide it, when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a

        legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

        Accordingly, 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

                                                     2