UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In Re: RAYFORD KNIGHT, a/k/a Cherokee, a/k/a Chief, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
May 6, 2008
May 28, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rayford Knight, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Rayford Knight petitions for a writ of mandamus,
asserting the district court has unduly delayed acting on a "Motion to Clarify Sentence" he claims to have filed in October 2006. He
seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act on the motion. Our thorough review of the district court's docket
sheet reveals that the only motion filed by Knight in October 2006 was a motion for return of property. Knight's two prior mandamus
petitions seeking an order compelling the district court to act on that motion were denied as moot because the district court had already acted on the motion. See In Re: Knight, 253 F. App'x 249
(4th Cir. 2007) (No. 07-4684), amended (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2007) (unpublished order correcting typographical error);* In Re: Knight, 242 F. App'x 908 (4th Cir. 2007) (No. 07-4202). Because there was
no "Motion to Clarify Sentence" filed in the district court and this court has already denied as moot two prior mandamus petitions seeking district court action on the only motion Knight filed in October 2006, we dismiss as frivolous Knight's instant petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny Knight's application for leave to We dispense with oral argument because
proceed in forma pauperis.
In case No. 07-4684, Knight petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to act on a motion for release he claimed he filed in October 2006. Because the only motion Knight filed in October 2006 was a motion for return of property, we liberally construed Knight's mandamus petition as referring to that motion. Knight did not challenge this characterization in his rehearing petition in that case. - 2 -
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?