In re Robertson

Fourth Circuit

In re Robertson

582 F. App'x 195

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 25, 2014

DocketNo. 14-1659

StatusPublished

This text of 582 F. App'x 195 (In re Robertson) 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 Robertson, 582 F. App'x 195 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lamont Robertson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on his habeas petition. 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 pauperis 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

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lamont Robertson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on his habeas petition. 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 pauperis 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 F. App'x 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robertson-ca4-2014.