In Re: DeBardeleben v., 98-532 (1998)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 98-532
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 01, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-532 In Re: JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1131-B) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Debardeleben, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James DeBard
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-532 In Re: JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1131-B) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Debardeleben, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James DeBarde..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-532 In Re: JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1131-B) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Debardeleben, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James DeBardeleben has filed a petition for writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his motion for reconsid- eration, disqualify the district court judge from ruling on his motion, and assign a new judge to decide his motion. Because the district court has denied his motion for reconsideration, we deny DeBardeleben's petition as moot. DeBardeleben's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. We dispense with oral argument be- cause 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
