
    Kirk L. LONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas L. WILDER, Mayor, sued in both official and individual capacity; Rodney Monroe, Ex-Richmond Police Chief, sued in both official and individual capacity; Mark Sims, Officer, Richmond Police Department, sued in both official and individual capacity; M.A. Harrison, Officer, Badge # 1925, Richmond Police Department, sued in both official and individual capacity; C.L. Martin, Officer, Richmond Police Department, sued in both official and individual capacity; Herman Loney, Captain, Richmond Police Department, sued in both official and individual capacity; Unknown # 1, Officers, Fed. State and City; Drew, Captain, Richmond Police Department, sued in both official and individual capacity; Hixson, Officer, Richmond Police Department, sued in both official and individual capacity; Unknown # 2, Officers, Richmond Police Department; George, Trooper, Virginia State Police, sued in individual capacity; Unknown #3, Trooper George Supervisor, Virginia State Police, sued in individual capacity; Unknown # 4, Police and Agents, Virginia State Police, sued in individual capacity; Unknown # 5, E.R. Staff, Hospital Staff and Sheriff Deputies, V.C.U. Health Care Systems, sued in both official and individual capacity; C.T. Woody, Sheriff, Richmond City Jail, sued in both official and individual capacity; Kernelle William Burnette, Richmond City Jail, sued in both individual and official capacity; Unknown # 6, Captain of Medical, Richmond City Jail, sued in both individual and official capacity; Unknown # 7, Captain of Jail House Operations, Richmond City Jail, sued in both individual and official capacity; Unknown # 8, Captain of Records Department, Richmond City Jail, sued in both individual and official capacity; Unknown # 9, All Medical Staff, Richmond City Jail, sued in both individual and official capacity; Unknown # 10, All Deputies Working A-2 left and Deputies who worked my hospital stay, Richmond City Jail, sued in both individual and official capacity; Jeffrey Frazier, Superintendent, Northern Neck Regional Jail, sued in individual capacity; Sudduth, Captain, Northern Neck Regional Jail, sued in individual capacity; Unknown # 11, Nursing Staff and Doctors, Northern Neck Regional Jail, sued in individual capacity; Unknown # 12, Correctional Officers, Northern Neck Regional Jail, sued in individual capacity; Hickey, Captain, Northern Neck Regional Jail, sued in individual capacity; Frederick, Ms., Grievance Coordinator, Northern Neck Regional Jail, sued in individual capacity; Unknown # 13, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm Agents, sued in individual capacity; Patricia R. Stansberry, Warden, FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Evans, Captain, FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Tushar C. Shah, Dr., FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Benjamin Rice, Dr., FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Alejandro Hadded, P.A., FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Yerga, P.A., FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Pugh, Dr., FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Engel, Associate Warden, FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Cuffee, Counselor, FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Brown, Case Manager, FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Kiddy, Unit Manager, FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity; Nagal, Dr., FCC Petersburg, sued in individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-7317.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.
    Decided: Jan. 27, 2011.
    Kirk L. Loney, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kirk Loney appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure to comply with the court’s order to advise the court of any address change. The district court subsequently vacated that order and reinstated Loney’s action. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  