Filed: Jun. 18, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1211 In re: TINDRICK ZEIGLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:17-hc-02044-FL) Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 18, 2020 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tindrick Zeigler, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tindrick Zeigler petitions for a writ of mandamu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1211 In re: TINDRICK ZEIGLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:17-hc-02044-FL) Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 18, 2020 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tindrick Zeigler, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tindrick Zeigler petitions for a writ of mandamus..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1211 In re: TINDRICK ZEIGLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:17-hc-02044-FL) Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 18, 2020 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tindrick Zeigler, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tindrick Zeigler petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to comply with the district court’s prior order to reconsider Zeigler’s request for nunc pro tunc designation. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court entered an order granting Zeigler’s motion to compel BOP to comply with the court’s prior order on April 7, 2020, and BOP subsequently complied. Accordingly, 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
