In Re: Azure, 11-1098 (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 11-1098
Visitors: 254
Filed: Apr. 13, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1098 In Re: LAWRENCE A. AZURE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:08-cv-00286) Submitted: March 22, 2011 Decided: April 13, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence A. Azure, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lawrence A. Azure petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the distric
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1098 In Re: LAWRENCE A. AZURE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:08-cv-00286) Submitted: March 22, 2011 Decided: April 13, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence A. Azure, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lawrence A. Azure petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1098
In Re: LAWRENCE A. AZURE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:08-cv-00286)
Submitted: March 22, 2011 Decided: April 13, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence A. Azure, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence A. Azure petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his
petition for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.
2010). He seeks an order from this court directing the district
court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not
warranted because of the recent issuance of the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, 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