Filed: Jul. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1182 In re: JAMES RAY CLARK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-ct-03207-FL) Submitted: June 25, 2019 Decided: July 2, 2019 Before KEENAN, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ray Clark, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Ray Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an orde
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1182 In re: JAMES RAY CLARK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-ct-03207-FL) Submitted: June 25, 2019 Decided: July 2, 2019 Before KEENAN, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ray Clark, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Ray Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1182
In re: JAMES RAY CLARK,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-ct-03207-FL)
Submitted: June 25, 2019 Decided: July 2, 2019
Before KEENAN, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Ray Clark, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Ray Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order requiring the
Defendants to respond to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint within a 30-day period.
Clark also seeks an order directing the district court to grant him monetary relief. Our
review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court, after conducting a
frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012), dismissed Clark’s § 1983
action. In light of the district court’s dismissal of Clark’s suit, we 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