In Re: Nicholas Ragin v., 14-1218 (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 14-1218
Visitors: 24
Filed: May 28, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1218 In re: NICHOLAS RAGIN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:04-cr-00271-RJC-7; 3:10-cv-00488-RJC) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Ragin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nicholas Ragin petitions fo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1218 In re: NICHOLAS RAGIN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:04-cr-00271-RJC-7; 3:10-cv-00488-RJC) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Ragin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nicholas Ragin petitions for..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1218
In re: NICHOLAS RAGIN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:04-cr-00271-RJC-7; 3:10-cv-00488-RJC)
Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas Ragin, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Ragin petitions for an amended writ of
mandamus alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in
ruling on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to act. We find
the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district
court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Source: CourtListener
