Filed: Jan. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2180 In Re: DONALD LYNN TAYLOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:09-cv-00190) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Lynn Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald Lynn Taylor petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2180 In Re: DONALD LYNN TAYLOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:09-cv-00190) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Lynn Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald Lynn Taylor petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging t..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2180 In Re: DONALD LYNN TAYLOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:09-cv-00190) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Lynn Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald Lynn Taylor petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (2006) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the proceedings in the district court reveals that there has been no undue delay. 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
