Filed: Feb. 26, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1088 In re: JIMMY RICHARD HUSBAND, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:18-cv-00271-JAG-RCY) Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 26, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Richard Husband, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Ri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1088 In re: JIMMY RICHARD HUSBAND, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:18-cv-00271-JAG-RCY) Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 26, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Richard Husband, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Ric..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1088
In re: JIMMY RICHARD HUSBAND,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:18-cv-00271-JAG-RCY)
Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 26, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Richard Husband, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Richard Husband petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s
docket reveals that the district court dismissed Husband’s petition for lack of jurisdiction
on January 28, 2020. Accordingly, 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