Filed: Oct. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1867 In re: MARK DAMRON, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-cv-00098) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Damron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Damron petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district cou
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1867 In re: MARK DAMRON, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-cv-00098) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Damron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Damron petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district cour..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1867
In re: MARK DAMRON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
(3:09-cv-00098)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Damron, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Damron petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
the district court has unduly delayed acting on certain motions
in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for a writ of habeas
corpus proceeding. 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 denied his motions and
dismissed his § 2254 case. Accordingly, because the district
court has recently decided Damron’s case, we deny the mandamus
petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
We deny Damron’s motions for appointment of counsel and for
evidentiary hearing. 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