Filed: Nov. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7258 In Re: CECIL EDWARD JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-261) Submitted: October 26, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cecil Edward Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cecil Ed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7258 In Re: CECIL EDWARD JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-261) Submitted: October 26, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cecil Edward Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cecil Edw..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7258 In Re: CECIL EDWARD JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-261) Submitted: October 26, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cecil Edward Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cecil Edward Jackson filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. The district court ruled on the motion by order entered on September 30, 2005. Accordingly, the mandamus petition is now moot. Therefore, although we grant Jackson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for mandamus relief. 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 -
