Court Opinion

ID: 9902175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 21:00:25.013388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:46.738718
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6499      Doc: 12         Filed: 11/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6499

        WILLIE LEE MARTIN, III,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        MARY LOCKLEAR; TODD ISHEE; ROY COOPER,

                             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-03072-BO)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 22, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, 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        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-6499         Doc: 12      Filed: 11/22/2023     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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

        Martin was released from incarceration during the pendency of this appeal; thus, to the

        extent Martin challenges the dismissal of his request for injunctive relief, the appeal 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 claims for

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

        the district court’s judgment. Martin v. Locklear, No. 5:22-ct-03072-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr.

        28, 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