In re: Linwood Gray

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998851376-2], granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998851374-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998851369-2] Originating case number: 8:94-cr-00241-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998908895]. Mailed to: Linwood Gray, Darrell Bracey. [12-1620]

Appeal: 12-1620

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/03/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1620

In re:

LINWOOD GRAY; DARRELL BRACEY,

Petitioners.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
(8:94-cr-00241-DKC)

Submitted:

June 29, 2012

Decided:

August 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linwood Gray; Darrell Bracey, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1620

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/03/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Linwood Gray and Darrell Bracey petition for a writ of
mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed
ruling on their Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the
denial of their 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and
also delayed ruling on their motion for recusal.

They seek an

order from this court directing the district court to act.

Our

review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district
court has recently entered an order denying the Petitioners’
motions.
forma

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

pauperis,

dispense

with

we
oral

deny

the

argument

mandamus
because

petition
the

as

facts

moot.
and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2