In Re: Jarvis v., 08-1810 (2008)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 08-1810
Visitors: 47
Filed: Nov. 21, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1810 In Re: DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:08-cv-00230-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 21, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Alan Jarvis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Alan Jarvis petitions for a writ of ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1810 In Re: DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:08-cv-00230-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 21, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Alan Jarvis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Alan Jarvis petitions for a writ of man..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1810 In Re: DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:08-cv-00230-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 21, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Alan Jarvis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Alan Jarvis petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. 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 the mandamus petition. We further deny as moot the Government’s motion to dismiss this action. 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
