Filed: Nov. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1868 In re: MALCOLM DEMON TYLER, a/k/a Milt, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:13-cr-00009-FPS-JES-2) Submitted: November 19, 2018 Decided: November 28, 2018 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Malcolm Demon Tyler, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Malcolm Demon Tyler petitions for a wri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1868 In re: MALCOLM DEMON TYLER, a/k/a Milt, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:13-cr-00009-FPS-JES-2) Submitted: November 19, 2018 Decided: November 28, 2018 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Malcolm Demon Tyler, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Malcolm Demon Tyler petitions for a writ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1868
In re: MALCOLM DEMON TYLER, a/k/a Milt,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:13-cr-00009-FPS-JES-2)
Submitted: November 19, 2018 Decided: November 28, 2018
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Malcolm Demon Tyler, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Demon Tyler petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court
has unduly delayed ruling on the supplement to his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Tyler’s supplement to his § 2255
motion on September 5, 2018. Accordingly, because the district court has recently
decided Tyler’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and 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