Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In Re: Pittman v., 02-6667 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6667 Visitors: 29
Filed: Sep. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6667 In Re: GARLAND EDWARD PITTMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-121) Submitted: August 8, 2002 Decided: September 19, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garland Edward Pittman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ga
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6667 In Re: GARLAND EDWARD PITTMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-121) Submitted: August 8, 2002 Decided: September 19, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garland Edward Pittman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Garland Edward Pittman petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), which Pittman filed in June 2000. The district court docket sheet reveals that on July 29, 2002, the district court entered a final order denying relief on Pittman’s § 2254 petition. Accordingly, Pittman has received the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition. Although we grant Pittman leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. Pittman’s motions for leave to file exhibits, for stay of judgment and injunction, and for appointment of counsel are denied. 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 DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer