Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re: Smith v., 96-540 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-540 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-540 In Re: PETER C. SMITH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-1447-PJM) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter C. Smith, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Peter C. Smith, a federal prisoner, brought this pet
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-540 In Re: PETER C. SMITH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-1447-PJM) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter C. Smith, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Peter C. Smith, a federal prisoner, brought this petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the district court had unduly de- layed acting on a matter pending before it. Smith had filed a mandamus petition in district court seeking to compel the United States Parole Commission ("USPC") to perform a duty allegedly owed to Smith. The USPC responded and on November 1, 1995, Smith filed his reply. The USPC moved for summary judgment, dismissal, or transfer in April 1996; Smith responded in opposition. Smith brought the current petition seeking an order directing the district court to act in the USPC mandamus action. Because there has been recent, significant action in the case below, we find there has been no undue delay in district court. Consequently, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer