Kristin Schelin v. Karl Malloy

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 29, 2024
• Docket: 24-1201
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1201 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1201

KRISTIN E. SCHELIN; MARK A. WATSON,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

KARL L. MALLOY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00058-DJN)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karl Linard Malloy, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Lawrence Perkins, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1201 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Karl L. Malloy appeals the district court’s order dismissing as moot his appeal from

the bankruptcy court’s January 11, 2024, order denying his motion for a stay pending

appeal. The district court dismissed the appeal as moot because the bankruptcy court issued

a corrected order denying Malloy’s motion for a stay pending appeal and specifically

stating that the new order “shall supersede and replace” the January 11, 2024, order. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s order. Schelin v. Malloy, No. 3:24-cv-00058-DJN (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2024); see

Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth principles of appellate

mootness). 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.

AFFIRMED