Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In Re: Grover Dillon, Sr., 12-1154 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1154 Visitors: 29
Filed: Mar. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1154 In Re: GROVER L. DILLON, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:98-cr-00140-1; 1:10-cv-00266) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grover L. Dillon, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Grover L. Dillon
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-1154


In Re:   GROVER L. DILLON, SR.,

                Petitioner.




                 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
                 (1:98-cr-00140-1; 1:10-cv-00266)


Submitted:   March 15, 2012                 Decided:   March 28, 2012


Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Grover L. Dillon, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Grover    L.    Dillon,        Sr.,   petitions       for    a     writ     of

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting

on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion.                        He seeks an

order from this court directing the district court to act.                               Our

review of the district court’s docket reveals that, on February

14,   2012,    the     district      court    denied    Dillon’s     § 2255          motion.

Accordingly,     because       the    district      court    has   recently          decided

Dillon’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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                     PETITION DENIED




                                              2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer