Filed: Jul. 14, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6159 In Re: RUSSELL LEON DOBEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-1661-6-11AK) Submitted: June 27, 2000 Decided: July 14, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Leon Dobey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Russell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6159 In Re: RUSSELL LEON DOBEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-1661-6-11AK) Submitted: June 27, 2000 Decided: July 14, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Leon Dobey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Russell L..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6159 In Re: RUSSELL LEON DOBEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-1661-6-11AK) Submitted: June 27, 2000 Decided: July 14, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Leon Dobey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Russell L. Dobey filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seek- ing an order directing the district court to issue a final order in an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). Because there had been no significant district court action on the habeas corpus petition in over a year, we ordered a response to the petition by June 14, 2000. While there was no timely re- sponse to our order, we have learned that on May 9, 2000, the dis- trict court issued its final order granting summary judgment to the respondents. Accordingly, we now deny the motion for leave to pro- ceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED 2