In re: Walker v., 04-6789 (2004)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 04-6789
Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6789 In Re: IVEY WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-66) Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the di
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6789 In Re: IVEY WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-66) Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the dis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6789 In Re: IVEY WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-66) Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on a petition that he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (2000). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. 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
