Filed: Oct. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6985 JOHN MARVIN OVERMAN, JR. Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (CA-03-126-5-BO) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Marvin Overman, Jr. Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Marvin Overman, Jr., petitions th
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6985 JOHN MARVIN OVERMAN, JR. Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (CA-03-126-5-BO) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Marvin Overman, Jr. Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Marvin Overman, Jr., petitions thi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6985
JOHN MARVIN OVERMAN, JR.
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(CA-03-126-5-BO)
Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Marvin Overman, Jr. Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Marvin Overman, Jr., petitions this court for writ
of mandamus. He complains of delay and of specific rulings by the
district court in an action he filed there. A decision has now
been rendered in the case and an appeal is pending in this court.
Overman’s complaint of delay, therefore, is moot. While mandamus
may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re United
Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979), Overman may pursue
the remaining claims he seeks to raise on mandamus in his direct
appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
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 -