Filed: Mar. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1068 In re: LIONELL ELIJAH EPHRAIM, a/k/a Lionel Elizah Williams, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cv-00107) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lionell Elijah Ephraim, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lionell Elijah Ephraim peti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1068 In re: LIONELL ELIJAH EPHRAIM, a/k/a Lionel Elizah Williams, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cv-00107) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lionell Elijah Ephraim, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lionell Elijah Ephraim petit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1068 In re: LIONELL ELIJAH EPHRAIM, a/k/a Lionel Elizah Williams, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cv-00107) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lionell Elijah Ephraim, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lionell Elijah Ephraim petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (2006) petitions. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act on the petitions. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we 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
