In Re: James Platts v., 14-1235 (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 14-1235
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1235 In Re: JAMES C. PLATTS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cv-00257-IMK-JES) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. Platts, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James C. Platts petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1235 In Re: JAMES C. PLATTS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cv-00257-IMK-JES) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. Platts, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James C. Platts petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that t..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1235
In Re: JAMES C. PLATTS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:13-cv-00257-IMK-JES)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James C. Platts, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James C. Platts petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on
his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (2012) petition. He seeks an order from
this court directing the district court to act. We find the
present record does not reveal undue delay in the district
court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Source: CourtListener
