Home/Fourth Circuit/In Re: Marvin A. Leifried

In Re: Marvin A. Leifried

842 F.2d 1291, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3368, 1988 WL 24313
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 18, 1988
Docket88-8005
StatusUnpublished

This text of 842 F.2d 1291 (In Re: Marvin A. Leifried) 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: Marvin A. Leifried, 842 F.2d 1291, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3368, 1988 WL 24313 (4th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

842 F.2d 1291
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
In Re: Marvin A. Leifried, Petitioner.

No. 88-8005.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

March 18, 1988.

Marvin A. Leifried, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Marvin A. Leifried has applied to this Court for a writ of mandamus or leave to file an interlocutory appeal.

After review of Leifried's petition, we find that issuance of a writ of mandamus is inappropriate at this time. Writs of mandamus are extraordinary writs, and the power to issue them is sparingly exercised. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Leifried has also not shown that an order exists which would justify granting leave to file an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b); Leifried's concern is, in fact, that the district court has failed to act on Leifried's Sec. 2255 motion as quickly as Leifried would like.

Accordingly, although leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for writ of mandamus or leave to file an interlocutory appeal is denied, and this action is dismissed.*

DISMISSED.

*

That action does not foreclose appropriate steps by us should there be inordinate delay by the magistrate or the district court on the 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 claim

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

Related

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal.
426 U.S. 394 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Occidental Chemical Corporation, E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., Union Carbide Corp., Shell Chemical, Shell Oil Co., Asarco Incorporated, Ciba-Geigy Corp., Ciba-Geigy Limited, Velsicol Corp., Koopers Co. Inc., American Cyanamid Co., Uniroyal Inc., Hercules, Inc., Fmc Corp., Deskins,i.), Kline (B.), Barnes (J.), Diehl (K.), Fogle (S., M.), Savitski (K.), Warrington (B., G.), Morgan (T., L.), Clark (M.), Wagner (C., C.), Cookson (C.), Thompson (D., A.), McGee (M.), Gruss (J
842 F.2d 1291 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
842 F.2d 1291, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3368, 1988 WL 24313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marvin-a-leifried-ca4-1988.