Filed: Mar. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1584 In Re: MICHAEL HARDY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:10-cr-00048-2; 2:13-cv-07419) Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Hardy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Hardy petitions for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1584 In Re: MICHAEL HARDY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:10-cr-00048-2; 2:13-cv-07419) Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Hardy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Hardy petitions for a..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1584
In Re: MICHAEL HARDY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:10-cr-00048-2; 2:13-cv-07419)
Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Hardy, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Hardy petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court
directing the district court to act. In light of the district
court’s recent action directing an evidentiary hearing on
Hardy’s § 2255 motion, we find no undue delay. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we 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