Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: ALD-095 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 11-4516 _ In re: FREDDY RIVERA-MARRERO, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-CV-02489) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. January 26, 2012 Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 2, 2012) _ OPINION _ PER CURIAM Freddy Rivera-Marrero seeks a w
Summary: ALD-095 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 11-4516 _ In re: FREDDY RIVERA-MARRERO, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-CV-02489) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. January 26, 2012 Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 2, 2012) _ OPINION _ PER CURIAM Freddy Rivera-Marrero seeks a wr..
More
ALD-095 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4516
___________
In re: FREDDY RIVERA-MARRERO,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-CV-02489)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 26, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 2, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Freddy Rivera-Marrero seeks a writ of mandamus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651,
directing the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to rule
on his habeas corpus petition.
An appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay
is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Madden v. Myers,
102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d
Cir. 1996). However, subsequent to the filing of this mandamus petition, the Magistrate
Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the
habeas petition be denied. We are confident that the District Court will act on the
recommendation without undue delay after the time for objections has expired. Thus,
there is no need for this Court to compel the District Court to exercise its authority.
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n,
319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.
2