In Re: Jha'Vaughn Clark, 19-1915 (2020)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 19-1915
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1915 In re: JHA’VAUGHN CLARK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:19-cv-00014-GMG-RWT) Submitted: March 19, 2020 Decided: March 27, 2020 Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jha’Vaughn Clark, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jha’Vaughn Clark petitions fo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1915 In re: JHA’VAUGHN CLARK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:19-cv-00014-GMG-RWT) Submitted: March 19, 2020 Decided: March 27, 2020 Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jha’Vaughn Clark, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jha’Vaughn Clark petitions for..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1915
In re: JHA’VAUGHN CLARK,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:19-cv-00014-GMG-RWT)
Submitted: March 19, 2020 Decided: March 27, 2020
Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jha’Vaughn Clark, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jha’Vaughn Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition. He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket
reveals that the magistrate judge recently took significant action on Clark’s § 2241 petition.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus
petition. 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
Source: CourtListener