In Re: Douglas Fauconier v., 17-1473 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 17-1473
Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1473 In Re: DOUGLAS LEIGH FAUCONIER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:14-cv-01692-TSE-JFA) Submitted: August 2, 2017 Decided: September 1, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Leigh Fauconier, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Leigh Fauconier petitions for a writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1473 In Re: DOUGLAS LEIGH FAUCONIER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:14-cv-01692-TSE-JFA) Submitted: August 2, 2017 Decided: September 1, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Leigh Fauconier, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Leigh Fauconier petitions for a writ ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1473 In Re: DOUGLAS LEIGH FAUCONIER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:14-cv-01692-TSE-JFA) Submitted: August 2, 2017 Decided: September 1, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Leigh Fauconier, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Leigh Fauconier petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his civil action. 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 has recently granted Fauconier’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered the Defendants to file a response to his complaint. Accordingly, because the district court has recently acted in Fauconier’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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
Source: CourtListener
