Filed: Aug. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1665 In Re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:13-mc-00003-H) Submitted: August 8, 2013 Decided: August 22, 2013 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Johnson Willis petitions
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1665 In Re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:13-mc-00003-H) Submitted: August 8, 2013 Decided: August 22, 2013 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Johnson Willis petitions f..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1665 In Re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:13-mc-00003-H) Submitted: August 8, 2013 Decided: August 22, 2013 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for leave to file a complaint in the district court. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied the motion on May 17, 2013. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Willis’s motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. PETITION DENIED 2
