Luis Rosario v. James Wilson

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7179 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7179 LUIS ROSARIO, a/k/a Luis Rafael Garcia Rosario, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. S. MARBREY, Lead Detective/Investigating Officer; DETECTIVE SCULLY; R. CARDOZA, Officer, RPD; M. GLENDY, Sgt., RPD; ANTHONY TONY MOORE, Informant; AMY L. BOMMER, Forensic Drug Chemist Agent; RANDOLPH J. HILL, Attorney at Law; JAMES M. WILSON, Prosecutor; JOHN DOE 1-12, Grand Jurors, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:24-ct-03229-BO-RJ) Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 29, 2025 Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luis Rosario, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7179 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Luis Rosario seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failing to comply with the magistrate judge’s prior order related to the filing fee. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Before Rosario noted this appeal, the district court vacated the order Rosario seeks to appeal. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review that order. See Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that “[a] case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Fort Knox Music Inc. v. Baptiste, 257 F.3d 108, 110 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that because “[a] vacated judgment has no effect,” an appeal from such a judgment is moot). 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