In Re: Oshay Jones, 18-2502 (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 18-2502
Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2502 In re: OSHAY TERRELL JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:13-cr-00038-MFU-1) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oshay Terrell Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Oshay Terrell Jones petitions for a writ of man
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2502 In re: OSHAY TERRELL JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:13-cr-00038-MFU-1) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oshay Terrell Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Oshay Terrell Jones petitions for a writ of mand..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2502 In re: OSHAY TERRELL JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:13-cr-00038-MFU-1) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oshay Terrell Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Oshay Terrell Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in May 2018. 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
