In re: Michael Darby
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999349080-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999349079-2] Originating case number: 5:07-cr-01253-MBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999406840]. Mailed to: Darby. [14-1431]
Appeal: 14-1431
Doc: 7
Filed: 07/31/2014
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1431
In re: MICHAEL ANTHONY DARBY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:07-cr-01253-MBS-1)
Submitted:
July 29, 2014
Decided:
July 31, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Anthony Darby, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1431
Doc: 7
Filed: 07/31/2014
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Michael
Anthony
Darby
petitions
for
a
writ
of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
He seeks an order from
this court directing the district court to act.
Our review of
the district court’s docket reveals that, on June 27, 2014, the
district
court
granted
the
Government’s
motion
for
summary
judgment on Darby’s § 2255 motion except as to Darby’s claim
that counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately advise him
regarding a formal plea offer.
The court ordered this claim be
held in abeyance pending an evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly,
because the district court has recently acted on Darby’s § 2255
motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot.
to proceed in forma pauperis.
We grant leave
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
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?