Pearl Madrial v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 23, 2024
• Docket: 24-1055
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1055 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1055 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1055 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 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