In Re: Copley v., 99-7728 (2000)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 99-7728
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7728 In Re: CRAIG O. COPLEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-90-47-HC) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig O. Copley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Craig O. Copley petitions th
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7728 In Re: CRAIG O. COPLEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-90-47-HC) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig O. Copley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Craig O. Copley petitions thi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7728 In Re: CRAIG O. COPLEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-90-47-HC) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig O. Copley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Craig O. Copley petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his motion for reconsid- eration. The district court denied this motion on January 4, 2000. We accordingly deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argu- ment, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source: CourtListener
