In re Fields

Fourth Circuit

In re Fields

209 F. App'x 356

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 22, 2006·No. No. 06-7803·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

David Fields petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court as the court has now ruled on the merits of the case. See In re: Fields, No. 9:02-cv-3708 (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2006). Accordingly, we grant Fields’ motion to proceed in forma pauper-is and deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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:

David Fields petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court as the court has now ruled on the merits of the case. See In re: Fields, No. 9:02-cv-3708 (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2006). Accordingly, we grant Fields’ motion to proceed in forma pauper-is and deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

In re Fields, 209 F. App'x 356 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

209 F. App'x 356 (In re Fields) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related