In re: Damron, 10-1416 (2010)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 10-1416
Visitors: 24
Filed: May 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1416 In Re: MARK DAMRON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-cv-00098) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Damron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Damron petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1416 In Re: MARK DAMRON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-cv-00098) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Damron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Damron petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has un..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1416
In Re: MARK DAMRON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:09-cv-00098)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Damron, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Damron petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He seeks an
order from this court directing the magistrate judge to issue
findings and a recommendation. Our review of the district
court’s docket reveals that the magistrate judge has issued his
report and recommendation. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus
petition as moot. 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
Source: CourtListener