John Cutonilli v. Federal Transit Administration
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-02373-ELH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: John Cutonilli 1606 Portugal Street Baltimore, MD 21231. [15-1725]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
November 9, 2015
December 3, 2015
Before KING, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Cutonilli, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harris Oakley, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Linda DeVuono,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
John Cutonilli appeals the district court’s order granting
the Federal Transit Administration’s and the Maryland Transit
Administration’s summary judgment motions on Cutonilli’s claims
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as its order
undisputed that the Red Line Project, which was a proposed eastwest mass transit line and the subject of Cutonilli’s claims,
has been cancelled.
We thus find that the appeal has been
See Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 1023
(2013) (holding that “[f]ederal courts may not decide questions
that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before
them or give opinions advising what the law would be upon a
brackets omitted); Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union, Local
1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2287 (2012) (recognizing that “[a] case
becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any
effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s orders, remand
the case to the district court, and instruct the district court
to dismiss Cutonilli’s claims.
See Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d
355, 364 (4th Cir. 2003) (“If a claim becomes moot after the
entry of a district court’s final judgment and prior to the
Pg: 3 of 3
completion of appellate review, we generally vacate the judgment
and remand for dismissal.”).
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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?