Filed: Oct. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1850 In Re: VICTOR WARDELL WRIGHT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:07-cv-02830-DKC; 8:06-cr-00038-DKC-1) Submitted: October 8, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Wardell Wright, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor Wardell Wright petiti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1850 In Re: VICTOR WARDELL WRIGHT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:07-cv-02830-DKC; 8:06-cr-00038-DKC-1) Submitted: October 8, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Wardell Wright, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor Wardell Wright petitio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1850 In Re: VICTOR WARDELL WRIGHT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:07-cv-02830-DKC; 8:06-cr-00038-DKC-1) Submitted: October 8, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Wardell Wright, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor Wardell Wright petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for leave to conduct discovery. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket reflects that after seeking and receiving several extensions of time, the government filed a response to Wright’s motion on June 4, 2009, and Wright replied later that month. On these facts, we conclude 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
