In Re: Brian Burmaster v., 16-1825 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 16-1825
Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1825 In re: BRIAN M. BURMASTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (5:16-hc-02102-D) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian M. Burmaster, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian M. Burmaster petitions for a writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1825 In re: BRIAN M. BURMASTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (5:16-hc-02102-D) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian M. Burmaster, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian M. Burmaster petitions for a writ of ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1825
In re: BRIAN M. BURMASTER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(5:16-hc-02102-D)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit
Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian M. Burmaster, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian M. Burmaster 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 conclude
that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the
district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, we 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