In re: Cassell v., 96-511 (1996)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 96-511
Visitors: 68
Filed: Sep. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-511 In Re: JEROME E. CASSELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-684) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome E. Cassell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerome Cassell brought this mandamus petition
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-511 In Re: JEROME E. CASSELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-684) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome E. Cassell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerome Cassell brought this mandamus petition ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-511 In Re: JEROME E. CASSELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-684) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome E. Cassell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerome Cassell brought this mandamus petition seeking an order compelling the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia to act on Cassell's motion for a temporary re- straining order and a preliminary injunction. Because we note that the district court dismissed without prejudice Cassell's 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) action during the pendancy of this petition, we conclude that this petition is moot. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but deny the petition for writ of manda- mus. 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
