Filed: Oct. 19, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 19, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1578 In re: ROY M. BELFAST, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:18-cv-00453-JLK-RSB) Submitted: October 15, 2020 Decided: October 19, 2020 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy M. Belfast, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roy M. Belfast petitions for a writ of ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1578 In re: ROY M. BELFAST, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:18-cv-00453-JLK-RSB) Submitted: October 15, 2020 Decided: October 19, 2020 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy M. Belfast, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roy M. Belfast petitions for a writ of man..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1578 In re: ROY M. BELFAST, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:18-cv-00453-JLK-RSB) Submitted: October 15, 2020 Decided: October 19, 2020 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy M. Belfast, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roy M. Belfast petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has entered an order denying Belfast’s motion and other associated motions. United States v. Belfast, No. 7:18-cv-00453-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2020). Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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. PETITION DENIED 2
