In Re: Gadd v., 03-4675 (2003)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 03-4675
Visitors: 48
Filed: Nov. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4675 In Re: WILLIAM S. GADD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-240) Submitted: October 17, 2003 Decided: November 3, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sanford Gadd, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Sanford G
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4675 In Re: WILLIAM S. GADD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-240) Submitted: October 17, 2003 Decided: November 3, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sanford Gadd, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Sanford Ga..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4675 In Re: WILLIAM S. GADD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-240) Submitted: October 17, 2003 Decided: November 3, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sanford Gadd, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Sanford Gadd petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to dismiss. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. 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
