Court Opinion

ID: 9892800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:52.801395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:46:30.554239
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1985      Doc: 6         Filed: 10/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1985

        In re: JOEY LAMONT BRUNSON,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        South Carolina, at Columbia. (3:14-cr-00604-JFA-18)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joey Lamont Brunson, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1985       Doc: 6          Filed: 10/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Joey Lamont Brunson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district

        court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He seeks an order from

        this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals

        that the district court recently granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment

        and denied Brunson relief on his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court

        has recently decided Brunson’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. To the

        extent that Brunson seeks recusal of the district court judge in this mandamus petition, we

        conclude that Brunson’s conclusory assertions of bias are insufficient to warrant recusal.

        See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2011). We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                  PETITION DENIED

                                                       2