Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gantt-El v. Anderson, 09-7217 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-7217 Visitors: 39
Filed: Dec. 02, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7217 GEORGE W. GANTT-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICKY ANDERSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Donald P. Dietrich, Magistrate Judge. (1:09-cv-00040-UA-DPD) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George W. Gantt-El, App
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7217 GEORGE W. GANTT-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICKY ANDERSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Donald P. Dietrich, Magistrate Judge. (1:09-cv-00040-UA-DPD) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George W. Gantt-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George W. Gantt-El seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006), and ordering him to pay the $5 filing fee, and (2) granting him an extension of time to pay the fee. Our review of the district court docket sheet and Gantt-El’s informal brief on appeal reveals that the filing fee was paid on June 16, 2009. Accordingly, because Gantt-El has paid the filing fee, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as moot. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and deny Gantt-El’s motion for judicial notice. 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. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer