Donald King v. Mary Johnson

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1196 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1196 DONALD F. KING, Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARY ELLA JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00672-MSN-LRV) Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 14, 2025 Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Ella Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald F. King, ODIN FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN, PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1196 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Mary Ella Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the bankruptcy trustee. We dismiss the appeal as moot. Johnson filed a notice of appeal to the district court from the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment order and separately noted an appeal from the bankruptcy court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment order. The district court dismissed the appeal from the summary judgment order on procedural grounds but subsequently considered the merits of the summary judgment order as well as the bankruptcy court’s denial of reconsideration and affirmed both orders. Because Johnson has obtained the relief she seeks in this appeal—namely, a merits review by the district court of the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the bankruptcy trustee—her appeal is moot. See Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A change in factual circumstances can moot a case on appeal, such as when the plaintiff receives the relief sought.”). Accordingly, although we grant the Trustee’s motion to file a surreply brief, 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 2