In re Fullard

Fourth Circuit

In re Fullard

139 F. App'x 571

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 26, 2005

DocketNo. 05-6381

StatusPublished

This text of 139 F. App'x 571 (In re Fullard) 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 Fullard, 139 F. App'x 571 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

James A. Fullard petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. More specifically, Fullard alleges in the first page of his mandamus petition that “the District Court didn’t rule on the merits of the case” and attaches the court’s October 9, 2003, order directing the Government to show cause why Fullard’s § 2254 petition should not be granted. We find that there has been no undue delay in the district court because it denied Fullard’s § 2254 petition. See Fullard v. Peguese, No. CA-03-2731-CCB (D. Md. filed Mar. 31, 2004 & entered Apr. 1, 2004). Accordingly, we 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 aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

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

PER CURIAM:

James A. Fullard petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. More specifically, Fullard alleges in the first page of his mandamus petition that “the District Court didn’t rule on the merits of the case” and attaches the court’s October 9, 2003, order directing the Government to show cause why Fullard’s § 2254 petition should not be granted. We find that there has been no undue delay in the district court because it denied Fullard’s § 2254 petition. See Fullard v. Peguese, No. CA-03-2731-CCB (D. Md. filed Mar. 31, 2004 & entered Apr. 1, 2004). Accordingly, we 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 aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. App'x 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fullard-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack