Filed: May 28, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1097 In Re: SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:99-cv-00152-RLV) Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Lamont Dudley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sean Lamont Dudley
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1097 In Re: SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:99-cv-00152-RLV) Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Lamont Dudley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sean Lamont Dudley p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1097 In Re: SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:99-cv-00152-RLV) Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Lamont Dudley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sean Lamont Dudley petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking recusal of United States District Court Judge Richard L. Voorhees. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that there are no pending cases or motions in Judge Voorhees’ court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We also deny the motion for stay. 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 -
