In Re: Jones, 10-1720 (2010)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 10-1720
Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1720 In Re: MICHAEL FORREST JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cv-01009-UA-LPA) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Forrest Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Forrest Jones petitions for a writ of mandamu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1720 In Re: MICHAEL FORREST JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cv-01009-UA-LPA) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Forrest Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Forrest Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1720 In Re: MICHAEL FORREST JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cv-01009-UA-LPA) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Forrest Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Forrest Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his civil 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 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 2
Source: CourtListener
