James Reid v. Unknown, No. 20-7294 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-7294 JAMES LAMONT REID, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00450-DJN-RCY) Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 24, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Lamont Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Lamont Reid, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action for failure to submit a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint within the allotted time. Because the district court’s “grounds [for] dismissal made clear that no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in [Reid’s] case,” we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). While this appeal was pending, the district court reinstated the action, albeit under a new case number, after Reid returned a completed § 1983 complaint. Because the district court already has accorded Reid the only relief he could obtain by way of this appeal, 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 Reid’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.