Filed: Mar. 09, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6037 In Re: MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI, Petitioner, On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-944-5) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen Kokoski, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Allen Kokoski petitions for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6037 In Re: MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI, Petitioner, On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-944-5) Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen Kokoski, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Allen Kokoski petitions for ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6037
In Re: MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI,
Petitioner,
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-01-944-5)
Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Allen Kokoski, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Allen Kokoski petitions for writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his
pending Rule 60(b) motion and motion to recuse the magistrate
judge. He seeks an order from this court directing the district
court to act. Mandamus is a drastic remedy, to be granted only in
extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
Cir. 1987). We note that the district court recently issued an
order denying Kokoski’s recusal motion, rendering this portion of
Kokoski’s mandamus petition moot. Moreover, because there has been
recent significant action in the district court, we find no undue
delay. Accordingly, we deny Kokoski’s petition for writ of
mandamus. 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 -