In Re: Steven Prentice v., 16-1851 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 16-1851
Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1851 In re: STEVEN DIXON PRENTICE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:16-cv-00179-CCE-JEP) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam. Steven Dixon Prentice, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Dixon Prentice petitions for a writ of manda
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1851 In re: STEVEN DIXON PRENTICE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:16-cv-00179-CCE-JEP) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam. Steven Dixon Prentice, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Dixon Prentice petitions for a writ of mandam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1851
In re: STEVEN DIXON PRENTICE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:16-cv-00179-CCE-JEP)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam.
Steven Dixon Prentice, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Dixon Prentice petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on
his “Demand for Release” in connection with his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2012) petition. The district court’s docket sheet reveals that
the court dismissed without prejudice Prentice’s § 2241 petition
on May 27, 2016. Accordingly, we deny Prentice’s 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
