Case Name: In re James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-14
Citations: 34 F. App'x 136
Docket Number: No. 02-6234
Parties: In re James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 34
Pages: 136–136

Head Matter:
In re James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner.
No. 02-6234.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 28, 2002,
Decided May 14, 2002.
James M. DeBardeleben, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On February 11, 2002, James M. DeBardeleben filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to act on his January 14, 2002, civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001). He also sought an order directing the district court to rule on his motion for a temporary restraining order. The district court entered an order dismissing DeBardeleben's complaint and denying a temporary restraining order on March 13, 2002. Because the district court has disposed of DeBardeleben's complaint and closed the case on its docket, DeBardeleben's mandamus petition is moot. Accordingly, we deny DeBardeleben's petition for initial hearing en banc, deny his motion for an extension of time nunc pro tunc, and deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.