Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Clifton Lee V., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Clifton Dwight Lee filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding no undue delay by the district court. While granting Lee's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and withdraw his request to hold the petition in abeyance, the court denied Lee's requests to vacate his criminal judgment, compel the district court to rule on his § 2255 motion, or compel the district judge's recusal. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1595

    Original Title

    In Re: Clifton Lee v., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Clifton Dwight Lee filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding no undue delay by the district court. While granting Lee's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and withdraw his request to hold the petition in abeyance, the court denied Lee's requests to vacate his criminal judgment, compel the district court to rule on his § 2255 motion, or compel the district judge's recusal. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Clifton Lee V., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Clifton Dwight Lee filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding no undue delay by the district court. While granting Lee's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and withdraw his request to hold the petition in abeyance, the court denied Lee's requests to vacate his criminal judgment, compel the district court to rule on his § 2255 motion, or compel the district judge's recusal. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent.

    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. 12-1595

    In Re: CLIFTON DWIGHT LEE, a/k/a Lite,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (7:08-cr-00041-GEC; 7:10-cv-80270-GEC)

    Submitted:

    July 19, 2012

    Decided:

    August 15, 2012

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Clifton Dwight Lee, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Clifton Dwight Lee petitions for a writ of mandamus,
    alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28
    U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.
    from

    this

    court

    vacating

    the

    criminal

    He seeks an order

    judgment

    against

    him,

    directing the district court to act on his 2255 motion, or


    compelling

    the

    district

    habeas action.

    judge

    to

    recuse

    himself

    from

    Lees

    We find there has been no undue delay in the

    district court and that Lee is otherwise not entitled to the


    mandamus relief he seeks.

    Accordingly, although we grant Lees

    application to proceed in forma pauperis and grant Lees request


    to

    withdraw

    his

    motion

    to

    place

    his

    abeyance, we deny the mandamus petition.

    mandamus

    petition

    in

    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