In re: Void-El, 10-1716 (2010)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 10-1716
Visitors: 67
Filed: Oct. 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1716 In Re: BRUCE EVERETT VOID-EL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:10-cv-00007-IMK-DJJ) Submitted: September 14, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Everett Void-El, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Everett Void-El petitions for a writ of m
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1716 In Re: BRUCE EVERETT VOID-EL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:10-cv-00007-IMK-DJJ) Submitted: September 14, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Everett Void-El, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Everett Void-El petitions for a writ of ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1716
In Re: BRUCE EVERETT VOID-EL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:10-cv-00007-IMK-DJJ)
Submitted: September 14, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce Everett Void-El, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Everett Void-El petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. He seeks an order from
this court directing the district court to act. Our review of
the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has
entered an order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing Void-El’s petition. Accordingly, 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
Source: CourtListener
