Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Pete Smith V., 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Pete Smith had petitioned the court, alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his Rule 60(b) motion. While the appeals court found the delay was not unreasonable enough to warrant mandamus relief, it denied the petition without prejudice, allowing Smith to file another petition if the district court did not act expeditiously. The court also granted Smith in forma pauperis status.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-04-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6188

    Original Title

    In Re: Pete Smith v., 4th Cir. (2004)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Pete Smith had petitioned the court, alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his Rule 60(b) motion. While the appeals court found the delay was not unreasonable enough to warrant mandamus relief, it denied the petition without prejudice, allowing Smith to file another petition if the district court did not act expeditiously. The court also granted Smith in forma pauperis status.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Pete Smith V., 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Pete Smith had petitioned the court, alleging undue delay by the district court in acting on his Rule 60(b) motion. While the appeals court found the delay was not unreasonable enough to warrant mandamus relief, it denied the petition without prejudice, allowing Smith to file another petition if the district court did not act expeditiously. The court also granted Smith in forma pauperis status.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-6188

    In Re: PETE SMITH, a/k/a Pete Noble Muhammad,


    a/k/a Jose,

    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-117)

    Submitted:

    March 31, 2004

    Decided:

    April 19, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Pete Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Pete Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the
    district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion under Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 60(b).

    He seeks an order from this Court directing the

    district court to act.

    Although we find that mandamus relief is

    not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the


    mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another
    mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously.
    We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like