Filed: Jul. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1319 In Re: EDDIE GAMBLE, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cv-01018-NCT-JEP) Submitted: June 13, 2012 Decided: July 13, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Gamble, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eddie Gamble, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1319 In Re: EDDIE GAMBLE, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cv-01018-NCT-JEP) Submitted: June 13, 2012 Decided: July 13, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Gamble, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eddie Gamble, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the d..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1319 In Re: EDDIE GAMBLE, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cv-01018-NCT-JEP) Submitted: June 13, 2012 Decided: July 13, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Gamble, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eddie Gamble, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2000 & Supp. 2012) 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 entered an order denying § 2241 relief without prejudice on May 29, 2012. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Gamble’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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
