In re Perkins

Fourth Circuit

In re Perkins

333 F. App'x 800

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 2009

DocketNo. 09-1988

StatusPublished

This text of 333 F. App'x 800 (In re Perkins) 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 Perkins, 333 F. App'x 800 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Perkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that after Perkins filed the petition in this court, the magistrate judge returned the habeas corpus petition to Perkins for failing to include an original signature. Accordingly, because the magistrate judge has recently acted upon Perkins’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma[801]*801terials 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

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Perkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that after Perkins filed the petition in this court, the magistrate judge returned the habeas corpus petition to Perkins for failing to include an original signature. Accordingly, because the magistrate judge has recently acted upon Perkins’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma[801]*801terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 F. App'x 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-perkins-ca4-2009.