Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1345 In re: JERRY LEWIS DEDRICK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (9:14-cv-00410-JMC-BM) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Lewis Dedrick, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerry Lewis Dedrick petitions for a writ of mandamus, allegi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1345 In re: JERRY LEWIS DEDRICK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (9:14-cv-00410-JMC-BM) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Lewis Dedrick, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerry Lewis Dedrick petitions for a writ of mandamus, allegin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1345
In re: JERRY LEWIS DEDRICK,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(9:14-cv-00410-JMC-BM)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Lewis Dedrick, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Lewis Dedrick petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) 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
dismissed the petition by order of July 17, 2014. Accordingly,
because the district court has recently decided Lewis’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