In Re: Hood v., 98-638 (1999)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 98-638
Visitors: 486
Filed: Jan. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-638 In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-83-1-MU) Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Hoo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-638 In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-83-1-MU) Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Hood..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-638 In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-83-1-MU) Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Hood filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to act on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) action. Because the district court has entered an order dismissing the action, the petition for a writ of mandamus is moot. Therefore, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition. We also deny Hood’s motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
