Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-02186/USCOURTS-ca4-07-02186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Hall Crum
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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.

Appeal: 07-2186 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/20/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

No. 07-2186 petition denied; No. 08-6387 affirmed by unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-2186 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/20/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

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-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.

Appeal: 07-2186 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/20/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

Appeal: 07-2186 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/20/2008 Pg: 4 of 4