Filed: Sep. 16, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1362 In re: TRACY LAMONT CLARK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cv-00542-WO-LPA) Submitted: September 4, 2013 Decided: September 16, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracy Lamont Clark, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tracy Lamont Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus, al
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1362 In re: TRACY LAMONT CLARK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cv-00542-WO-LPA) Submitted: September 4, 2013 Decided: September 16, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracy Lamont Clark, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tracy Lamont Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus, all..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1362 In re: TRACY LAMONT CLARK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cv-00542-WO-LPA) Submitted: September 4, 2013 Decided: September 16, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracy Lamont Clark, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tracy Lamont Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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 relief on Clark’s § 2254 petition in a order entered on July 28, 2013. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Clark’s case, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
