In Re: Curtis Richardson v., 17-1616 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 17-1616
Visitors: 70
Filed: Aug. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1616 In re: CURTIS RICHARDSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:15-cr-00492-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02981-RBH) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Richardson petition
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1616 In re: CURTIS RICHARDSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:15-cr-00492-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02981-RBH) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Richardson petitions..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1616
In re: CURTIS RICHARDSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:15-cr-00492-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02981-RBH)
Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Richardson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2012) motion. 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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
