Leo Farnsworth v. United States Department of the Treasury

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-6016
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6016 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6016

LEO BRANDON FARNSWORTH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00511-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: September 16, 2025 Decided: October 17, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leo Brandon Farnsworth, Appellant Pro Se. Ellen Page DelSole, Carl D. Wasserman, Rachel Ida Wollitzer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6016 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Leo Brandon Farnsworth appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action

for failure to prosecute. We previously remanded the case to the district court for the

limited purpose of allowing the court to rule on a pending Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to

alter or amend the judgment. On remand, the court granted Farnsworth’s Rule 59(e)

motion, vacated its dismissal order, and reopened the case. See Farnsworth v. U.S. Dep’t

of Treas., No. 2:22-cv-00511-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va. filed June 3, 2024 & entered June 4,

2024). Farnsworth’s appeal of that dismissal order is therefore moot. See Fleet Feet, Inc.

v. NIKE, Inc., 986 F.3d 458, 463 (4th Cir. 2021) (“If an event occurs during the pendency

of an appeal that makes it impossible for a court to grant effective relief to a prevailing

party, then the appeal must be dismissed as moot.” (citation modified)); see also Fort Knox

Music Inc. v. Baptiste, 257 F.3d 108, 110 (2d Cir. 2001) (explaining that because “a vacated

judgment has no effect,” an appeal from a vacated judgment is moot (citation modified)).

We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. 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