In re: George Willie Buford

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. ALD-267

Case: 16-1878

Document: 003112316043

Page: 1

ALD-267

Date Filed: 06/03/2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-1878
___________
IN RE: GEORGE WILLIE BUFORD,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 3-14-cv-01573)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 26, 2016
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 3, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________

PER CURIAM
George Willie Buford, a federal prisoner who is proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of
mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania to adjudicate his civil rights claims against officials at USP Lewisburg. For
the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the mandamus petition.

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-1878

Document: 003112316043

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/03/2016

In 2014, Buford filed an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, seeking to compel prison
officials to provide him with specific housing and medical treatments. The defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment on November 6, 2015. On April 15, 2016, Buford
filed this mandamus petition, asking that we “compel the lower court to exercise its
supervisory authority over federal actors by granting [him] an opportunity to be heard in
a reasonable time and meaningful manner.” Shortly thereafter, on April 25, 2016, a
Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court grant the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. By order entered May 13, 2016, the District Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, granted the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, and directed the Clerk to close the case. Therefore, because Buford
has received the only relief that he requested, namely, the adjudication of his claims, we
will dismiss his mandamus petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.,
77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of
adjudication that . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case
must be dismissed as moot.”).

2