Filed: Nov. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1785 In re: RAYMOND C. MARSHALL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cv-00506-NCT-JEP) Submitted: October 26, 2018 Decided: November 5, 2018 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond C. Marshall, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond C. Marshall petitions for a writ of manda
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1785 In re: RAYMOND C. MARSHALL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cv-00506-NCT-JEP) Submitted: October 26, 2018 Decided: November 5, 2018 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond C. Marshall, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond C. Marshall petitions for a writ of mandam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1785
In re: RAYMOND C. MARSHALL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cv-00506-NCT-JEP)
Submitted: October 26, 2018 Decided: November 5, 2018
Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond C. Marshall, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond C. Marshall petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina has unduly delayed in transferring his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition to the Middle District of North Carolina. He seeks an
order from this court directing the District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina to act. Our review of both courts’ dockets reveals that the transfer of Marshall’s
§ 2254 petition was completed on June 15, 2018, and that the Middle District
subsequently dismissed his petition without prejudice. Accordingly, although we grant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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