In Re: James Pridgen, 20-1720 (2020)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 20-1720
Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 26, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 26, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1720 In re: JAMES D. PRIDGEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-hc-02300-BO) Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 26, 2020 Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James D. Pridgen, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James D. Pridgen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1720 In re: JAMES D. PRIDGEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-hc-02300-BO) Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 26, 2020 Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James D. Pridgen, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James D. Pridgen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1720
In re: JAMES D. PRIDGEN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-hc-02300-BO)
Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 26, 2020
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James D. Pridgen, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James D. Pridgen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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 district court recently took significant action on Pridgen’s petition. Accordingly,
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
