Middleton v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC et al

Filing 48

USCA Order Re: 46 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. The supplemented petition is denied. This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition if the district court has not acted on the pending motions within 90 days. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Case: 18-72679, 11/07/2018, ID: 11075886, DktEntry: 4, Page 1 of 1

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

NOV 7 2018

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

In re: ERVIN MIDDLETON, Jr.
______________________________
ERVIN MIDDLETON, Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.

No.

18-72679

D.C. No.
2:18-cv-00945-JAD-PAL
District of Nevada,
Las Vegas
ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, LAS
VEGAS,
Respondent,
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC; et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of
this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v.
U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the supplemented
petition is denied. This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition if
the district court has not acted on the pending motions within 90 days.
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.
DENIED.
KML/MOATT