Filed: Mar. 18, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1073 In Re: YAHYA MUQIT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:08-cv-04091-CMC-RSC) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yahya Muqit, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yahya Muqit petitions for a writ of mandamus, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1073 In Re: YAHYA MUQIT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:08-cv-04091-CMC-RSC) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yahya Muqit, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yahya Muqit petitions for a writ of mandamus, al..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1073 In Re: YAHYA MUQIT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:08-cv-04091-CMC-RSC) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yahya Muqit, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yahya Muqit petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) civil rights action. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court dismissed the action without prejudice by order entered January 29, 2009. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Muqit’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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
