In re: Raymond Chestnut, 19-1595 (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 19-1595
Visitors: 38
Filed: Sep. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1595 In re: RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:19-hc-02068-FL) Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: September 20, 2019 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Edward Chestnut, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestn
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1595 In re: RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:19-hc-02068-FL) Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: September 20, 2019 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Edward Chestnut, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestnu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1595
In re: RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:19-hc-02068-FL)
Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: September 20, 2019
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Edward Chestnut, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edward Chestnut 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, we grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. 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
