Filed: Apr. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1214 In Re: ALAN ANDREW MACKETY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02120-D) Submitted: April 5, 2017 Decided: April 12, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan Andrew Mackety, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alan Andrew Mackety petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1214 In Re: ALAN ANDREW MACKETY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02120-D) Submitted: April 5, 2017 Decided: April 12, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan Andrew Mackety, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alan Andrew Mackety petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the d..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1214
In Re: ALAN ANDREW MACKETY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02120-D)
Submitted: April 5, 2017 Decided: April 12, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan Andrew Mackety, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alan Andrew Mackety petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court
has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 has dismissed the § 2241 petition. Accordingly, because the
district court has recently decided Mackety’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