Filed: Sep. 22, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-556 In Re: RONALD FLOYD JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-254) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Floyd Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald Floyd Jackson brought this
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-556 In Re: RONALD FLOYD JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-254) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Floyd Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald Floyd Jackson brought this m..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-556
In Re: RONALD FLOYD JACKSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-254)
Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Floyd Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Floyd Jackson brought this mandamus petition seeking an
order directing the district court to act upon his “Motion for Re-
lief from Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.” The
record reveals that the district court mooted this motion by minute
entry dated March 24, 1998. Because the district court has acted on
Jackson’s motion, albeit by minute entry, there is no cause for
this court to grant Jackson’s petition for rehearing.
To the extent that Jackson might challenge the propriety of
the order’s disposition, mandamus relief cannot be used as a sub-
stitute for a direct appeal of the district court’s order mooting
Jackson’s motion. See In re United Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960
(4th Cir. 1979). Further, Jackson has other avenues for seeking the
requested relief, so mandamus relief is not warranted. See In re
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n,
860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, although we grant Jackson’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. 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