Elvis Wayne Jones v. THE AMERICAN CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION, Standards

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6255
ELVIS WAYNE JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE AMERICAN CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION, Standards and Accreditation
Department; THE VIRGINIA CONTROLLER; THE ACA- POLUNSKY AUDITS;
POLUNSKY FACULTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00100-RAJ-LRL)
Submitted: April 22, 2021 Decided: April 26, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elvis Wayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Elvis Wayne Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his civil action for failure to comply with the court’s prior order to submit an amended 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and statutory filing fee or in forma pauperis application within
the allotted time. Before this appeal was filed, Jones submitted to the district court an
amended § 1983 complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because
Jones now has complied with the district court’s prior order and the district court will obtain
jurisdiction to review the filings upon disposition of this appeal, we conclude there is no
relief Jones could obtain by way of this appeal, and we dismiss the 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 further deny
Jones’ motions for federal transit extension, summary judgment, default judgment, and
injunctive relief pending appeal. 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 of 2 --