In re McNeill

Fourth Circuit

In re McNeill

436 F. App'x 147

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 2011

DocketNo. 10-1948

StatusPublished

This text of 436 F. App'x 147 (In re McNeill) 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 McNeill, 436 F. App'x 147 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[148]*148Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Lavon McNeill petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) 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 McNeill’s motion on March 25, 2011. Accordingly, because the district court has recently adjudicated McNeill’s Rule 59(e) motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant McNeill’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

PETITION DENIED.

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

[148]*148Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Lavon McNeill petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) 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 McNeill’s motion on March 25, 2011. Accordingly, because the district court has recently adjudicated McNeill’s Rule 59(e) motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant McNeill’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F. App'x 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mcneill-ca4-2011.