In Re: Cooper v., 08-1514 (2008)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 08-1514
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 10, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1514 In Re: RICHARD D. COOPER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cv-00272-BEL) Submitted: June 25, 2008 Decided: July 10, 2008 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard D. Cooper, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard D. Cooper petitions for a writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1514 In Re: RICHARD D. COOPER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cv-00272-BEL) Submitted: June 25, 2008 Decided: July 10, 2008 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard D. Cooper, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard D. Cooper petitions for a writ ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1514 In Re: RICHARD D. COOPER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cv-00272-BEL) Submitted: June 25, 2008 Decided: July 10, 2008 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard D. Cooper, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard D. Cooper petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2000) action. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. 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
