In Re: Jeffrey Todd Keplinger

57 F.3d 1066, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21735, 1995 WL 365006
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 19, 1995
Docket94-8096
StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.3d 1066 (In Re: Jeffrey Todd Keplinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Jeffrey Todd Keplinger, 57 F.3d 1066, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21735, 1995 WL 365006 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

57 F.3d 1066
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

IN RE: JEFFREY TODD KEPLINGER, Petitioner.

No. 94-8096.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 19, 1995.

Jeffrey Todd Keplinger, Petitioner Pro Se.

DISMISSED.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Todd Keplinger, a West Virginia inmate, filed this mandamus petition complaining that he had been transferred to a new facility where he had no access to a law library, religious services, or his personal computer. Keplinger noted that he had moved for relief from these conditions in an ongoing district court action, but the district court had failed to act on the motion. In a subsequent communication with this court, Keplinger noted that the district court was now dealing with the issue. Therefore, although we grant permission to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Keplinger's motion to stay the proceedings pending final judgment in the district court and dismiss Keplinger's mandamus petition as moot.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

*

This ruling will of course have no effect on the underlying district court action

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F.3d 1066, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21735, 1995 WL 365006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jeffrey-todd-keplinger-ca4-1995.