In re: Jaron Brice, 18-2374 (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 18-2374
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2374 In re: JARON BRICE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cv-00960-AJT-TCB) Submitted: March 14, 2019 Decided: March 18, 2019 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaron Brice, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jaron Brice petitions for a writ of mandamu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2374 In re: JARON BRICE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cv-00960-AJT-TCB) Submitted: March 14, 2019 Decided: March 18, 2019 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaron Brice, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jaron Brice petitions for a writ of mandamus..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2374
In re: JARON BRICE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:18-cv-00960-AJT-TCB)
Submitted: March 14, 2019 Decided: March 18, 2019
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jaron Brice, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jaron Brice 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, 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