Filed: Apr. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2423 In re: OLANDER R. BYNUM, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:97-hc-00495-H) Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Olander R. Bynum, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Olander R. Bynum, a North Carolina inmate,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2423 In re: OLANDER R. BYNUM, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:97-hc-00495-H) Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Olander R. Bynum, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Olander R. Bynum, a North Carolina inmate, f..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2423
In re: OLANDER R. BYNUM,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:97-hc-00495-H)
Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Olander R. Bynum, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Olander R. Bynum, a North Carolina inmate, filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court to order state prison officials to
release him pending appeal. This court has dismissed his appeal. See Bynum v.
Allsbrook, 745 F. App’x 496 (4th Cir. 2018) (Nos. 18-6709/7168). Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus 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