In re: Skundor v., 02-7381 (2002)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 02-7381
Visitors: 26
Filed: Oct. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7381 In Re: DAVID SKUNDOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-205-5) Submitted: October 2, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Skundor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Skundor has filed a petition for a writ of ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7381 In Re: DAVID SKUNDOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-205-5) Submitted: October 2, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Skundor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Skundor has filed a petition for a writ of man..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7381 In Re: DAVID SKUNDOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-205-5) Submitted: October 2, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Skundor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Skundor has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to direct the district court to rule on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action based on undue delay. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny Skundor’s petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice to his ability to file a new petition for mandamus relief if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
