In re: Curtis Sangster v., 15-2351 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 15-2351
Visitors: 38
Filed: Feb. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2351 In re: CURTIS LOUIS SANGSTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-hc-02114-D) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Louis Sangster, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Louis Sangster petiti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2351 In re: CURTIS LOUIS SANGSTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:15-hc-02114-D) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Louis Sangster, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Louis Sangster petitio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2351
In re: CURTIS LOUIS SANGSTER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:15-hc-02114-D)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Louis Sangster, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Louis Sangster petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on
his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (2012) petition. 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