Aylward v. City of Charlotte

Full title: ILONKA AYLWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE; ARMSTRONG GLEN…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Apr 13, 2023

No. 21-2156 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2023)

Opinion

21-2156

04-13-2023

ILONKA AYLWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE; ARMSTRONG GLEN, P.C.; JOSEPH H. LETOURNEAU, Defendants-Appellees, and CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG STORM WATER SERVICES, a/k/a Charlotte Stormwater Services, a/k/a Charlotte/Mecklenburg Storm Water, a/k/a Charlotte Storm Water Services, a/k/a City of Charlotte Storm Water Services, Defendant.

Ilonka Aylward, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Edward Powers, III, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Clarence Edward Matherson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Sandra W. Mitterling, Amie Carol Sivon, RAGSDALE LIGGETT, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: March 23, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00232-MOC-DSC)

Ilonka Aylward, Appellant Pro Se.

Thomas Edward Powers, III, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Clarence Edward Matherson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Sandra W. Mitterling, Amie Carol Sivon, RAGSDALE LIGGETT, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Ilonka Aylward has filed an appeal from the district court's order denying her Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Prohibitive Preliminary Injunction. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that they have finished the activities Aylward sought to enjoin and that the appeal is now moot. Aylward opposes the motion. Upon review of the materials relative to this appeal, we grant the Appellees' motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as moot. See Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 231 (4th Cir. 2017). 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