In Re William Walker, 934 F.2d 320 (4th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
In Re William Walker, 934 F.2d 320 (4th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re William Walker
91-8016.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 3, 1991.
Unpublished opinion
934 F.2d 320
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 21653
1991 WL 90883
Unpublished

934 F.2d 320
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
In re William WALKER, Petitioner.

No. 91-8016.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 6, 1991.
Decided June 3, 1991.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

William Walker, petitioner pro se.

DISMISSED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~320–321]1

William Walker and four other inmates instituted this action, complaining about conditions at the Augusta Correctional Center. The district court dismissed all inmates save William Glazebrook because only Glazebrook had filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and because the court determined that Glazebrook was precluded from filing suit on behalf of other inmates.[1] Walker appealed, asking that the complaint be reinstated and that he be permitted to file an in forma pauperis application. Following this appeal, Walker's suit was reopened. Accordingly, as the relief sought has been granted, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal 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 significantly aid the decisional process.

2

DISMISSED.

1

The court's order, rather than stating that plaintiffs other than Glazebrook were dismissed, stated that the court recognized the complaint solely as one filed by Glazebrook. Presumably because of that wording, Walker's appeal from that order was initially docketed in this Court as a mandamus petition