Filed: Mar. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7749 In Re: JAMES D. LYONS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-467-5-F3) Submitted: February 14, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James D. Lyons, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James D. Lyons has filed a petition for a w
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7749 In Re: JAMES D. LYONS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-467-5-F3) Submitted: February 14, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James D. Lyons, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James D. Lyons has filed a petition for a wr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7749
In Re: JAMES D. LYONS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-467-5-F3)
Submitted: February 14, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James D. Lyons, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James D. Lyons has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,
asking this court to direct the district court to rule on his
Motion to Expedite Service of Complaint and Injunction and further
proceed with his action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), based on
undue delay. Lyons’s action has been pending in the district court
since July 2002. We find that mandamus relief is not warranted
because there has been no undue delay. Accordingly, although we
grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Lyons’s petition
for a writ of mandamus. 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