Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Padgett V., 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    James Padgett filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his pending 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for mandamus, finding that recent significant actions in the district court case, including the filing of a magistrate judge's report and Padgett's objections, meant Padgett was not entitled to the relief sought. While allowing Padgett to proceed in forma pauperis, the Fourth Circuit denied mandamus relief and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-09-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6938

    Original Title

    In re: Padgett v., 4th Cir. (1999)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    James Padgett filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his pending 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for mandamus, finding that recent significant actions in the district court case, including the filing of a magistrate judge's report and Padgett's objections, meant Padgett was not entitled to the relief sought. While allowing Padgett to proceed in forma pauperis, the Fourth Circuit denied mandamus relief and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    In Re: Padgett V., 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Padgett filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his pending 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for mandamus, finding that recent significant actions in the district court case, including the filing of a magistrate judge's report and Padgett's objections, meant Padgett was not entitled to the relief sought. While allowing Padgett to proceed in forma pauperis, the Fourth Circuit denied mandamus relief and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-6938

    In Re: JAMES L. PADGETT, JR.,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    September 9, 1999

    (CA-99-73-6)

    Decided:

    September 15, 1999

    Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    James L. Padgett, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    James L. Padgett, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus
    alleging undue district court delay in ruling on his pending 28
    U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999) petition.

    Accordingly,

    Padgett seeks an order from this court directing the District Court
    for the District of South Carolina to consider his 2254 petition.
    The writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be granted only
    in

    those

    available.

    extraordinary

    situations

    when

    no

    other

    remedy

    is

    See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

    Because there has been recent significant action in the district


    court case, including the filing of the magistrate judges report
    and recommendation and Padgetts objections thereto, we find that
    Padgett is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

    Accordingly, al-

    though we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief.

    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

    You might also like