Filed: May 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1040 In re: VICTOR B. PERKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-ct-03189-D) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Bernard Perkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor B. Perkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that t
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1040 In re: VICTOR B. PERKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-ct-03189-D) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Bernard Perkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor B. Perkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that th..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1040
In re: VICTOR B. PERKINS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:15-ct-03189-D)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Victor Bernard Perkins, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor B. Perkins petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on
his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). He
seeks an order from this court directing the district court to
act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that, on
March 2, 2016, the district court accepted the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissed Perkins’ complaint.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided
Perkins’ case, we deny the mandamus petition and amended
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