In Re: Nathanael Reynolds v., 16-2407 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 16-2407
Visitors: 58
Filed: Mar. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2407 In Re: NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS, Petitioner. On Petition for Extraordinary Writ. Submitted: March 20, 2017 Decided: March 23, 2017 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathanael Lenard Reynolds filed a petition and supplements theret
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2407 In Re: NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS, Petitioner. On Petition for Extraordinary Writ. Submitted: March 20, 2017 Decided: March 23, 2017 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathanael Lenard Reynolds filed a petition and supplements thereto..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2407
In Re: NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Extraordinary Writ.
Submitted: March 20, 2017 Decided: March 23, 2017
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathanael Lenard Reynolds filed a petition and supplements thereto seeking
transfer of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action to “the Supreme Court of the District.”
Although he alleges that he cannot receive an impartial hearing in the district court,
Reynolds’ conclusory allegations do not establish grounds for disqualification.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for transfer. We deny the motion for response and
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
