Case Name: IN RE: David James WARD, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 670 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 16-3932
Parties: IN RE: David James WARD, Petitioner
Judges: Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 754–754

Head Matter:
IN RE: David James WARD, Petitioner
No. 16-3932
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. October 27, 2016
(Opinion filed: November 23, 2016)
David James Ward, Pro Se.
Mark J. McCarren, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Respondent.
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM
In July 2016, David James Ward filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District of New Jersey. In September 2016, Ward filed a motion for summary judgment. By order and opinion entered on October 18, 2016, the District Court dismissed Ward's § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Ward now seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the District Court to rule on his motion for summary judgment. Because the District Court has already dismissed Ward's § 2255 motion, we will deny as moot his petition for a writ of mandamus. See In re Austrian & German Holocaust Litig., 250 F.3d 156, 162-63 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (mandamus petition requesting that court of appeals compel district court action generally may be dismissed as moot upon district court's entry of final order).
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.