In Re: McClelland v., 02-6796 (2002)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 02-6796
Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6796 In Re: STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-105-2) Submitted: July 3, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen E. McClelland, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephen E. McClelland has filed in this court
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6796 In Re: STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-105-2) Submitted: July 3, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen E. McClelland, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephen E. McClelland has filed in this court a..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6796 In Re: STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-105-2) Submitted: July 3, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen E. McClelland, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephen E. McClelland has filed in this court a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the district court to order the state to respond to his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002). Because the district court has disposed of McClelland’s § 2254 petition, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the mandamus petition 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 2
Source: CourtListener
