Case Name: In re: James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-21
Citations: 134 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 05-6341
Parties: In re: James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
In re: James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner.
No. 05-6341.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 8, 2005.
Decided: June 21, 2005.
James M. DeBardeleben, Petitioner pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James M. DeBardeleben petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has improperly refused to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to file his motion. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court filed DeBardeleben's motion and issued a final order dismissing the motion as successive. DeBardeleben v. United States, No. 3:05-cv-00176 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2005). Accordingly, because the district court has taken the action DeBardeleben seeks, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED