William Boles v. Kenneth Lassiter, No. 22-6444 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6444 WILLIAM Z. BOLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KENNETH E. LASSITER; JAMIE COBB; HARRIS ENZOR; BRADLEY N. FIELDS; SERGEANT JONES; FAUSTINA F. BROWN; SUPERINTENDENT DAY; SUPERINTENDENT CASSIDY; LIEUTENANT PATRICK; MR. HAMILTON; TODD E. ISHEE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:21-ct-03010-FL) Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 28, 2022 Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Z. Boles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Z. Boles seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his civil action against prison officials based on injuries he suffered while incarcerated. Although the order was an appealable interlocutory order at the time Boles filed his notice of appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), the district court has now entered a final order dismissing the complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, we dismiss Boles’ appeal as moot. See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (“A case becomes moot . . . when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dex Media W., Inc. v. City of Seattle, 696 F.3d 952, 956 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissing as moot appeal from denial of preliminary injunction where district court had entered final judgment because “deciding the preliminary injunction appeal would have no practical consequences”). 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.