In Re: Michael Monzel, 12-2258 (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 12-2258
Visitors: 55
Filed: Nov. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2258 In re: MICHAEL MATTHEW MONZEL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. 5:12-hc-02166-F) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Matthew Monzel, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Matthew Monzel petitio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2258 In re: MICHAEL MATTHEW MONZEL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. 5:12-hc-02166-F) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Matthew Monzel, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Matthew Monzel petition..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2258 In re: MICHAEL MATTHEW MONZEL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. 5:12-hc-02166-F) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Matthew Monzel, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Matthew Monzel petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
