Opinion
24-6288
09-16-2024
TRAVIS L. WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DETECTIVE ALTIZER, Defendant-Appellee.
Travis L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 12, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00934-LCB-LPA)
Travis L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Travis L. Watson appeals the district court's amended order denying as moot his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 motion for relief from the court's judgment in favor of Defendants in Watson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Specifically, because Watson's Rule 60 motion raised only a claim that this court had already considered and rejected in affirming the underlying judgment, we conclude that the district court did not err in deeming the motion moot. See Fleet Feet, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc., 986 F.3d 458, 463 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that mootness occurs when an event transpiring while the matter is pending "makes it impossible for [the] court to grant effective relief" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Lee Mem'l Hosp. v. Becerra, 10 F.4th 859, 867 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Randolph, S.J., concurring) (noting that "a Rule 60(b) motion raising only an issue already decided on appeal violates the mandate rule and the law-of-the-case doctrine"); see id. at 867 nn.2-3, 868 n.4 (collecting cases). Accordingly, we grant Watson's motion to exceed the length limitations for informal briefs, and we affirm the district court's order. Watson v. McPhatter, No. 1:17-cv-00934-LCB-LPA (M.D. N.C. Mar. 12, 2024). 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.
AFFIRMED.