In Re: Elisha Riggleman v., 14-2238 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 14-2238
Visitors: 28
Filed: Feb. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2238 In re: ELISHA RIGGLEMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cv-03232) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elisha Riggleman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Elisha Riggleman petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2238 In re: ELISHA RIGGLEMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cv-03232) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elisha Riggleman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Elisha Riggleman petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2238
In re: ELISHA RIGGLEMAN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cv-03232)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elisha Riggleman, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elisha Riggleman petitions for a 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