Filed: Nov. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1830 In re: JIMMY REID, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:14-cv-00029-TDS-LPA) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Reid, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Reid petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, seeking an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1830 In re: JIMMY REID, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:14-cv-00029-TDS-LPA) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Reid, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Reid petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, seeking an ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1830
In re: JIMMY REID,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:14-cv-00029-TDS-LPA)
Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Reid, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Reid petitions this court for a writ of
mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court to rule
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. Our review of the
district court’s docket reveals that the court dismissed Reid’s
§ 2254 petition by order entered on September 30, 2014.
Accordingly, because Reid has received the relief he seeks, we
grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus
petition as moot. 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