In Re: Kevin Holland v., 17-1354 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 17-1354
Visitors: 26
Filed: Apr. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1354 In re: KEVIN HOLLAND, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:16-cv-06000) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Holland, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Holland petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district cour
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1354 In re: KEVIN HOLLAND, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:16-cv-06000) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Holland, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Holland petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1354
In re: KEVIN HOLLAND,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:16-cv-06000)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Holland, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Holland 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
