Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Albert Burgess, Jr. V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his 2012 Section 2255 motion, related pending motions, and 2013 motion to recuse. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court docket and found that the district court had denied the motion to recuse on January 20, 2015 and denied the Section 2255 motion and pending motions on February 26, 2015. As such, the Fourth Circuit granted the petitioner in forma pauperis status but denied the writ of mandamus as moot since the district court had recently ruled on the outstanding motions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-03-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1899

    Original Title

    In Re: Albert Burgess, Jr. v., 4th Cir. (2015)

    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 petitioner filed a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his 2012 Section 2255 motion, related pending motions, and 2013 motion to recuse. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court docket and found that the district court had denied the motion to recuse on January 20, 2015 and denied the Section 2255 motion and pending motions on February 26, 2015. As such, the Fourth Circuit granted the petitioner in forma pauperis status but denied the writ of mandamus as moot since the district court had recently ruled on the outstanding motions.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Albert Burgess, Jr. V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his 2012 Section 2255 motion, related pending motions, and 2013 motion to recuse. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court docket and found that the district court had denied the motion to recuse on January 20, 2015 and denied the Section 2255 motion and pending motions on February 26, 2015. As such, the Fourth Circuit granted the petitioner in forma pauperis status but denied the writ of mandamus as moot since the district court had recently ruled on the outstanding motions.

    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. 14-1899

    In Re:

    ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1)

    Submitted:

    February 27, 2015

    Decided:

    March 17, 2015

    Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Albert

    Charles

    Burgess,

    Jr.,

    petitions

    for

    writ

    of

    mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in


    acting on his November 2012 motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2012), motions pending in the 2255 action, and his October
    2013

    motion

    to

    recuse.

    He

    seeks

    directing the district court to act.


    courts

    docket

    reveals

    that

    the

    an

    order

    from

    this

    court

    Our review of the district

    court

    denied

    the

    motion

    to

    recuse on January 20, 2015, and denied the 2255 motion and the
    motions

    pending

    Accordingly,

    in

    because

    that
    the

    action

    district

    on
    court

    February
    has

    26,

    2015.

    recently

    denied

    Burgess motions, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis


    and deny the mandamus petition as moot.

    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

    You might also like