In re: Joseph Hall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999819826-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999831647-2]. Originating case numbers: 5:11-cr-00034-FPS-MJA-1, 5:14-cv-00133-FPS-MJA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999939659]. Mailed to: Petitioner. [16-1541]

Appeal: 16-1541

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1541

In re:

JOSEPH SAMUEL HALL,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:11-cr-00034-FPS-MJA-1; 5:14-cv-00133-FPS-MJA)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Samuel Hall, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1541

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Joseph

Samuel

Hall

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus,

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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 accepted
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denied relief on
Hall’s § 2255 motion by order entered August 11, 2016.

Because

the district court has recently decided Hall’s case, his request
for

a

ruling

evidentiary

is

moot.

hearing

Further,

on

his

insofar

§ 2255

as

Hall

claims,

he

seeks
does

an
not

demonstrate a clear right to such a hearing, as required for
mandamus relief.

See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860

F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, although we grant

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for
writ of mandamus.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2