In re: Hood v., 98-566 (1998)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 98-566
Visitors: 30
Filed: Jul. 08, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-566 In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-83-1-MU) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner filed this
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-566 In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-83-1-MU) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner filed this p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-566 In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-83-1-MU) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to act on his com- plaint. We find no unreasonable delay. Therefore, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to refile the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
