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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999711248]. Mailed to: John Cutonilli 1606 Portugal Street Baltimore, MD 21231. [15-1725]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1725 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1725 JOHN CUTONILLI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, ADMINISTRATION; MARYLAND TRANSIT Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:13-cv-02373-ELH) Submitted: November 9, 2015 Decided: 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 Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-1725 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: 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 denying Cutonilli’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. It is undisputed that the Red Line Project, which was a proposed eastwest mass transit line and the subject of Cutonilli’s claims, has been cancelled. rendered moot. 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 hypothetical state of facts”) (internal quotation marks and 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 2 Appeal: 15-1725 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/03/2015 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 3

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?