Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Tidwell V., 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Donald Eugene Tidwell. The petition sought an order directing the district court to act on Tidwell's 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion, which had not seen significant action for over four years. The Court of Appeals directed the United States to respond. In response, the United States informed the court that the district court was prepared to file its final order on the § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals then received a copy of the district court's final order, denying Tidwell's petition as moot since he received the relief sought. The Court

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-04-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7776

    Original Title

    In Re: Tidwell v., 4th Cir. (2002)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Donald Eugene Tidwell. The petition sought an order directing the district court to act on Tidwell's 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion, which had not seen significant action for over four years. The Court of Appeals directed the United States to respond. In response, the United States informed the court that the district court was prepared to file its final order on the § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals then received a copy of the district court's final order, denying Tidwell's petition as moot since he received the relief sought. The Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    In Re: Tidwell V., 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Donald Eugene Tidwell. The petition sought an order directing the district court to act on Tidwell's 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion, which had not seen significant action for over four years. The Court of Appeals directed the United States to respond. In response, the United States informed the court that the district court was prepared to file its final order on the § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals then received a copy of the district court's final order, denying Tidwell's petition as moot since he received the relief sought. The Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-7776

    In Re: DONALD EUGENE TIDWELL,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus


    (CR-94-297, CA-97-3894)

    Submitted:

    March 20, 2002

    Decided:

    April 1, 2002

    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Donald Eugene Tidwell, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Donald Eugene Tidwell filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
    seeking to have this court issue an order directing the district
    court to act on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. At
    the time Tidwell filed his petition, the district court had taken
    no significant action in this case for over four years.

    We

    directed the United States to respond to the mandamus petition. In


    reply, the United States informed us that the district court was
    prepared to file its final order.
    the order.

    We have since received a copy of

    Tidwell therefore has received the relief he sought

    through his mandamus petition. Accordingly, we deny the motion for


    leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition as
    moot.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

    arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional
    process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like