Filed: Jul. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1263 In Re: TIMOTHY HUGH LINDSEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:08-cr-00091-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00350-BR) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Hugh Lindsey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy Hugh Lindsey petitions for a wr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1263 In Re: TIMOTHY HUGH LINDSEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:08-cr-00091-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00350-BR) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Hugh Lindsey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy Hugh Lindsey petitions for a wri..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1263
In Re: TIMOTHY HUGH LINDSEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:08-cr-00091-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00350-BR)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Hugh Lindsey, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Hugh Lindsey petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his
motion for a certificate of appealability after dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this
court directing the district court to act. Our review of the
district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied a
certificate of appealability in the March 21, 2013 order
dismissing the § 2255 motion, and, on March 28, 2013, denied as
moot Lindsey’s separate motion for a certificate of
appealability. Accordingly, because the district court has
already ruled on Lindsey’s request for a certificate of
appealability, 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 this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2