Filed: Oct. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7381 In Re: DAVID LAWRENCE DIXON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-964) Submitted: October 17, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lawrence Dixon, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On August 23
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7381 In Re: DAVID LAWRENCE DIXON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-964) Submitted: October 17, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lawrence Dixon, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On August 23,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7381 In Re: DAVID LAWRENCE DIXON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-964) Submitted: October 17, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lawrence Dixon, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On August 23, 2001, David L. Dixon filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to act on his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) on October 29, 1999. Shortly there- after, on September 26, 2001, the district court entered an order dismissing Dixon’s habeas petition. Because the district court has disposed of Dixon’s petition and closed the case on its docket, Dixon’s petition for a writ of mandamus is moot. Accordingly, although we grant Dixon’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
