Tyrell O’neal Brown v. CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Commonwealth Superintendent; TED HALL

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6807
TYRELL O’NEAL BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Commonwealth Superintendent; TED HALL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00135-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: January 17, 2019 Decided: January 22, 2019
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrell O’Neal Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tyrell O’Neal Brown, a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing
without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition for failure to pay the filing fee.*
Review of the district court’s docket reveals that, shortly after the district court entered
the dismissal order, Brown paid the filing fee. The district court subsequently reinstated
Brown’s § 2241 petition, albeit under a new case number. See Brown v. Robinson,
No. 3:18-cv-00135-HEH-RCY (E.D. Va., PACER No. 12). By virtue of this order, the
district court effectively granted Brown the only relief he could have obtained by way of
this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See CVLR Performance
Horses, Inc. v. Wynne, 792 F.3d 469, 474 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Litigation may become moot
during the pendency of an appeal when an intervening event makes it impossible for the
court to grant effective relief to the prevailing party.”). 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
* Although a certificate of appealability generally is required to appeal “the final
order in a habeas corpus proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012), we conclude
that no certificate of appealability is required here because the district court’s dismissal
for failure to pay the filing fee is unrelated to the merits of the § 2241 petition. See
Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-
400 (4th Cir. 2015).

-- 2 of 2 --