Filed: Jan. 23, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7202 In Re: CHRISTOPHER L. CAREY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-414-5) Submitted: December 12, 2005 Decided: January 23, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher L. Carey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher L. Carey petitions for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7202 In Re: CHRISTOPHER L. CAREY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-414-5) Submitted: December 12, 2005 Decided: January 23, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher L. Carey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher L. Carey petitions for w..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7202 In Re: CHRISTOPHER L. CAREY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-414-5) Submitted: December 12, 2005 Decided: January 23, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher L. Carey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher L. Carey petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We deny the mandamus petition because the delay is not unreasonable, and thus, mandamus relief is not warranted.* Further, 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 * While the record reflects significant delays in the early processing of Carey’s § 2241 petition, in recent months the court has taken significant action. - 2 -
