In re: Travis Arnold


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000069908-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000079254-2]; denying Motion to suspend [1000102635-2]; terminating Motion for orders of protection and for unlimited and unrestricted access to communicate to law enforcement members [1000161099-2] Originating case numbers: 1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1,1:16-cv-00725-TDS-JEP. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000165369]. Mailed to: Petitioner. [17-1543]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1543 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1543 In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Nos. 1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1; 1:16-cv-00725-TDS-JEP) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: October 2, 2017 Appeal: 17-1543 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Travis Denorris Arnold 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 dismissed the motion on June 23, 2017. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Arnold’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny Arnold’s motion to suspend appellate proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

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?