Rickey Young v. Steve Draper, No. 17-1184 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1184 RICKEY G. YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STEVE DRAPER, Sheriff; CHIEF SEAN DUNN, Martinsville Police Department; SGT/DEPUTY PETERS; NANCY HYLTON, and others, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:17-cv-00001-JLK) Submitted: May 30, 2017 Decided: June 9, 2017 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rickey G. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Nathan Henry Schnetzler, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia; Jennifer Dillow Royer, GUYNN & WADDELL P.C., Salem, Virginia; Amy Miles Kowalski, Chad Allan Mooney, PETTY, LIVINGSTON, DAWSON & RICHARDS, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rickey G. Young appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012). While this interlocutory appeal was pending, Young voluntarily dismissed his civil action in the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). We therefore dismiss Young’s 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 also deny as moot Young’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order denying injunctive relief pending appeal, and we deny Young’s motion to expedite decision. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.