In re Hill
This text of 418 F. App'x 204 (In re Hill) 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.
Opinion
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
David Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to correct judgment. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act seasonably. We grant [205]*205leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Hill’s motion to require a response to the petition. 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
418 F. App'x 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hill-ca4-2011.