David Hall Crum
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In Re: DAVID HALL CRUM, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
DAVID HALL CRUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General; BUREAU OF PRISONS, The Director; HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:04-cv-00983)
June 10, 2008
June 20, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
No. 07-2186 petition denied; No. 08-6387 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Hall Crum, Petitioner/Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM: These consolidated cases pertain to federal prisoner David Hall Crum. In No. 07-2186, Crum petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking reconsideration of the order denying his consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petitions. He requests an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district
court issued an order on February 29, 2008, denying Crum's motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, although we grant Crum leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny as moot both the mandamus petition and Crum's motion to expedite. In No. 08-6387, Crum appeals the district court's orders adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on the § 2241 petitions and denying Crum's Rule 59(e) motion. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Crum v. Attorney General of the United States, No. 5:04-cv00983 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 13, 2007 & Feb. 29, 2008). We deny as moot
Crum's motions to expedite and for bail pending appeal.
- 3 -
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.
No. 07-2186 PETITION DENIED No. 08-6387 AFFIRMED
- 4 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?