Filed: Apr. 05, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2542 In Re: CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 5, 2013 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Everette Hinton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Everette Hinton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an orde
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2542 In Re: CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 5, 2013 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Everette Hinton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Everette Hinton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2542 In Re: CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 5, 2013 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Everette Hinton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Everette Hinton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to file his civil complaint. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the court has docketed the complaint. See Hinton v. Bridges, No. 3:13-cv-00119-RJC (filed Jan. 16, 2013; entered Feb. 22, 2013). Accordingly, because Hinton has received the relief he requested, we deny as moot the mandamus petition. We also deny as moot Hinton’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion objecting to the application of the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) (2006), to his case. 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
