Case Name: In re: Tracy Glenn JACKSON, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-15
Citations: 142 F. App'x 791
Docket Number: No. 05-6639
Parties: In re: Tracy Glenn JACKSON, Petitioner.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 791–791

Head Matter:
In re: Tracy Glenn JACKSON, Petitioner.
No. 05-6639.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 19, 2005.
Decided Sept. 15, 2005.
Tracy Glenn Jackson, Petitioner pro se.
Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tracy Glenn Jackson petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, construing the motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it for failure to obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Jackson's case, although we grant Jackson leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.
PETITION DENIED
To the extent that Jackson seeks to challenge the district court's denial of his motions for production of documents, oral argument, and appointment of counsel, and the district court's final order construing Jackson's Rule 60 motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, we deny mandamus relief because he has another available remedy; namely, to file an appeal from the district court's order. See In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (mandamus relief not available where there are other adequate means to obtain relief).