Filed: May 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6241 In Re: CLIFTON HARRIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-2924) Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: May 26, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Harris, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clifton Harris petitions for a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6241 In Re: CLIFTON HARRIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-2924) Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: May 26, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Harris, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clifton Harris petitions for a w..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6241 In Re: CLIFTON HARRIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-2924) Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: May 26, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Harris, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clifton Harris petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion to stay his federal habeas corpus petition. That motion was filed in the district court in November 2003, and was supported by additional pleadings in January 2004. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Harris’s motion to appoint counsel and deny the mandamus 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 -
