In Re: Crum v. , 282 F. App'x 223 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2186
In Re: DAVID HALL CRUM,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:04-cv-00983)
No. 08-6387
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)
Submitted: June 10, 2008 Decided: 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No. 07-2186 petition denied; No. 08-6387 affirmed by unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Crum v. Attorney General of the United States, No. 5:04-cv-
00983 (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 -