Filed: Mar. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1018 In re: DAVID MCDOWELL ROBINSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cr-00087-RDB-1) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David McDowell Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David McDowell Robinson petitions for a writ of m
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1018 In re: DAVID MCDOWELL ROBINSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cr-00087-RDB-1) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David McDowell Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David McDowell Robinson petitions for a writ of ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1018 In re: DAVID MCDOWELL ROBINSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cr-00087-RDB-1) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David McDowell Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David McDowell Robinson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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 the motion on January 23, 2014. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Robinson’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
