In Re: Wilkins v., 99-1739 (1999)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 99-1739
Visitors: 70
Filed: Jul. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1739 In Re: MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-899) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael D. Wilkins filed this petition for a wr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1739 In Re: MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-899) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael D. Wilkins filed this petition for a wri..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1739 In Re: MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-899) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael D. Wilkins filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to act on a motion for judgment by default filed in the district court in April 1999. The district court has recently acted on this motion. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny this mandamus petition as moot. We also deny Wilkins’ mo- tion for summary judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
