In re Matthews

Fourth Circuit

In re Matthews

669 F. App'x 184

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 17, 2016·No. No. 16-1643·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion after remand. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperism, deny Matthews’ motion for recusal and judicial notice, and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Matthews petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion after remand. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperism, deny Matthews’ motion for recusal and judicial notice, and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

In re Matthews, 669 F. App'x 184 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

669 F. App'x 184 (In re Matthews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related