Pearl O. Madrial v. MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1055
PEARL O. MADRIAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00372-FL)
Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Harold E. Lucas, LUCAS LAW GROUP, PLLC, Garner, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Michael
S. Raab, Sonia Carson, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Pearl O. Madrial has noted an appeal from the district court’s order granting
Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion and dismissing for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction her civil action alleging that Defendant illegally appointed a special counsel
who illegally brought criminal charges against then-candidate for President Donald Trump
and that she likely would involuntarily withhold her vote for the candidate of her choice.
The district court determined that Madrial did not satisfy her burden to show standing to
sue under Article III of the Constitution.
During the pendency of this appeal, the special counsel moved for and received a
dismissal of his criminal prosecution brought in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and moved for and received dismissal of its appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of the dismissal of its criminal prosecution
brought against then-candidate Donald Trump in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. In light of these developments, our resolution of this appeal
would be without effect, and therefore, advisory. We thus lack jurisdiction to consider this
appeal. 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)); Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150, 161 (4th
Cir. 2010) (noting that parties lack legally cognizable interest in outcome where “resolution
of an issue could not possibly have any practical effect on the outcome of the matter”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --