In re Lyons

Fourth Circuit

In re Lyons

57 F. App'x 182

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 2003

DocketNo. 02-7749

StatusPublished

This text of 57 F. App'x 182 (In re Lyons) 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 Lyons, 57 F. App'x 182 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CURIAM.

James D. Lyons has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to direct the district court to rule on his Motion to Expedite Service of Complaint and Injunction and further proceed with his action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), based on undue delay. Lyons’s action has been pending in the district court since July 2002. We find that mandamus relief is not warranted because there has been no undue delay. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Lyons’s petition for a writ of mandamus. 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

PEE CURIAM.

James D. Lyons has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to direct the district court to rule on his Motion to Expedite Service of Complaint and Injunction and further proceed with his action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), based on undue delay. Lyons’s action has been pending in the district court since July 2002. We find that mandamus relief is not warranted because there has been no undue delay. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Lyons’s petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 F. App'x 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lyons-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack