Filed: Sep. 02, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6317 JOSE JUAN GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; RICHARD L. MERCE, Special Agent; STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-40-2) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6317 JOSE JUAN GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; RICHARD L. MERCE, Special Agent; STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-40-2) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAL..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6317 JOSE JUAN GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; RICHARD L. MERCE, Special Agent; STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-40-2) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Juan Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jose Juan Garcia appeals the district court’s order denying his request for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1361 (1994), to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service to commence deportation proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Garcia v. INS, No. CA-98-40-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 1998). 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. AFFIRMED 2