Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re: Michael Puzey, 18-1089 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1089 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1089 In re: MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-16; 3:17-cv-00128-GMG-RWT; 3:17-cv-129-GMG-RWT) Submitted: April 17, 2018 Decided: April 20, 2018 Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Paul Puzey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-1089


In re: MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete,

                    Petitioner.



                     On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-16; 3:17-cv-00128-GMG-RWT; 3:17-cv-129-GMG-RWT)


Submitted: April 17, 2018                                         Decided: April 20, 2018


Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Paul Puzey, Petitioner Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Michael Paul Puzey petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district

court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 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, we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and deny Puzey’s mandamus petition and his motion to expedite. 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer