In re: Curtis Richardson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000085034-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000140771-2], [1000079924-2]. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00492-RBH-1, 4:16-cv-02981-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000144718]. Mailed to: Curtis Richardson. [17-1616]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1616 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/28/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1616 In re: CURTIS RICHARDSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:15-cr-00492-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02981-RBH) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1616 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/28/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Richardson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2012) motion. 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

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?