Filed: Jan. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2232 In re: ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., petitions f
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2232 In re: ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., petitions fo..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2232 In re: ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his complaint. 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 recently dismissed his complaint. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Hairston’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We further deny Hairston’s motion to waive fees. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
