Filed: Jan. 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7649 In Re: LEWIS HATTEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-62) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 22, 2003 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis Hatten, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lewis Hatten petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7649 In Re: LEWIS HATTEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-62) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 22, 2003 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis Hatten, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lewis Hatten petitions for a writ of mandamus, allegi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7649 In Re: LEWIS HATTEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-62) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 22, 2003 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis Hatten, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lewis Hatten petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in Hatten’s § 2255 action on November 8, 2002. Accordingly, because the district court has recently acted in Hatten’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 DENIED 2
