Filed: Dec. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7103 In Re: RALPH FRANKLIN FREDRICK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-04-20) Submitted: October 22, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Franklin Fredrick, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ralph Fr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7103 In Re: RALPH FRANKLIN FREDRICK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-04-20) Submitted: October 22, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Franklin Fredrick, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ralph Fra..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7103 In Re: RALPH FRANKLIN FREDRICK, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-04-20) Submitted: October 22, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Franklin Fredrick, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ralph Franklin Fredrick petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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, we deny the mandamus petition, deny Fredrick’s motion to expand the record, and deny his motion to expedite. Although 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 -
