Filed: Sep. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1390 In re: MICHAEL GERARD CAMPHOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:15-cr-00363-JKB-2) Submitted: August 24, 2018 Decided: September 28, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Gerard Camphor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Ge
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1390 In re: MICHAEL GERARD CAMPHOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:15-cr-00363-JKB-2) Submitted: August 24, 2018 Decided: September 28, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Gerard Camphor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Ger..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1390
In re: MICHAEL GERARD CAMPHOR,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:15-cr-00363-JKB-2)
Submitted: August 24, 2018 Decided: September 28, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Gerard Camphor, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Gerard Camphor has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a
supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling the district
court to act on his motion for release, filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and
directing the district court to adjudicate his § 2255 motion without unnecessary delay.
We conclude that Camphor is not entitled to mandamus relief.
“Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy” and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. United States v. Moussaoui,
333 F.3d 509, 516 (4th Cir. 2003). Further,
mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief
sought. In re Braxton,
258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001).
To the extent that Camphor seeks to compel the district court to act on his motion
for release, we deny the mandamus petition as moot because the district court has denied
that motion. As to Camphor’s claims that the district court has unnecessarily delayed
consideration of his § 2255 motion, we find the present record does not reveal undue
delay in the district court.
Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition and supplemental 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