Filed: Jun. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6780 In Re: IVEY WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-22-T, CA-02-66-3) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivey Walker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ivey Walker, a federal prisoner, filed a petit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6780 In Re: IVEY WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-22-T, CA-02-66-3) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivey Walker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ivey Walker, a federal prisoner, filed a petiti..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6780
In Re: IVEY WALKER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CR-97-22-T, CA-02-66-3)
Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivey Walker, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ivey Walker, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ
of mandamus alleging undue delay in the district court. Walker
filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2241 (West
2000) on February 20, 2002.
The writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be
granted in those extraordinary situations when no other remedy is
available. In re: Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We
find that there has been no undue delay in the district court. We
therefore deny the petition for mandamus relief.
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