Filed: Oct. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1787 In re: DANNY R. JACOBS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-hc-02155-BO) Submitted: October 18, 2018 Decided: October 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny R. Jacobs, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny R. Jacobs petitions f
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1787 In re: DANNY R. JACOBS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-hc-02155-BO) Submitted: October 18, 2018 Decided: October 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny R. Jacobs, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny R. Jacobs petitions fo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1787
In re: DANNY R. JACOBS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-hc-02155-BO)
Submitted: October 18, 2018 Decided: October 22, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danny R. Jacobs, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Danny R. Jacobs petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (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
