Filed: Jan. 05, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7428 In Re: CECIL EDWARD JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-261) Submitted: December 17, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cecil Edward Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cecil Edw
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7428 In Re: CECIL EDWARD JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-261) Submitted: December 17, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cecil Edward Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cecil Edwa..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7428
In Re: CECIL EDWARD JACKSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-261)
Submitted: December 17, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cecil Edward Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cecil Edward Jackson petitions this court for a writ of
mandamus to compel the district court to act on his motion filed
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) on February 23, 2004. Mandamus is a
drastic remedy, to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.
In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We find there has
been no undue delay by the district court. We therefore deny
Jackson’s petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to his
right to refile if the district court fails to act expeditiously on
his Rule 60(b) motion. While we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, 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 -