Filed: Apr. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7587 DERRELL B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUDGE MARVIN SMITH; ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JONATHAN G. NEWELL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-03313-JKB) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7587 DERRELL B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUDGE MARVIN SMITH; ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JONATHAN G. NEWELL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-03313-JKB) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7587
DERRELL B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JUDGE MARVIN SMITH; ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JONATHAN G.
NEWELL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-03313-JKB)
Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derrell B. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrell B. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ
of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. * Williams v. Smith, No. 1:17-cv-03313-JKB (D. Md. Nov. 14, 2017). 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.
AFFIRMED
*
Insofar as Williams’ informal brief raises claims not presented to the district
court, we conclude that Williams has waived appellate review of those claims. See
Pornomo v. United States,
814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016).
2