Filed: Feb. 09, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1702 In Re: THOMAS W. HILL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition. (CA-04-55-1) Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas W. Hill, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas W. Hill petitions for writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1702 In Re: THOMAS W. HILL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition. (CA-04-55-1) Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas W. Hill, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas W. Hill petitions for writ o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1702
In Re: THOMAS W. HILL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition. (CA-04-55-1)
Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas W. Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thomas W. Hill petitions for writ of mandamus or
prohibition directing the district court and the bankruptcy court
to abstain from further proceedings with regard to an involuntary
bankruptcy petition filed against him. We find that Hill has not
shown a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed.
Sav. & Loan Ass’n,
860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly,
we deny the mandamus petition. We also deny Hill’s motion to hold
this petition in abeyance pending the resolution of other matters
pending in this court. 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 -