HLD-009                                                       NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 17-2770
                                       ___________

                            IN RE: HERNAN NAVARRO,
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                       On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
                            District Court of the Virgin Islands
    (Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 1-99-cr-00016-003 & D.V.I. Civ. No. 1-11-cv-00112)
                        District Judge: Honorable Wilma A. Lewis
                       ____________________________________

                   Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                 August 24, 2017
         Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed: November 2, 2017)
                                        _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Hernan Navarro has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the District

Court of the Virgin Islands had failed to rule on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

On August 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation

concerning Navarro’s § 2255 motion and advised Navarro that he could file objections



*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
within fourteen days. Although mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s

“undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” see Madden v. Myers, 

, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), the case is now moving forward and we find no reason to grant

the extraordinary relief of mandamus, see In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 

, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). We have full confidence that the District Court will rule within a

reasonable time after the expiration of Navarro’s time to submit objections (and any

extension thereof). The petition will thus be denied.




                                            2