In re Carr

Fourth Circuit

In re Carr

581 F. App'x 261

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 14, 2014

DocketNo. 14-1550

StatusPublished

This text of 581 F. App'x 261 (In re Carr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Carr, 581 F. App'x 261 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Steven Donewan Carr petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) 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 mandamus petition. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Steven Donewan Carr petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) 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 mandamus petition. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 F. App'x 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carr-ca4-2014.