Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Michael Darby V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The petitioner, Michael Anthony Darby, 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. However, the court of appeals denied the petition as moot, noting that the district court had recently ruled on the § 2255 motion, granting summary judgment except as to one ineffective assistance of counsel claim which was held for an evidentiary hearing. As the district court had now acted on the § 2255 motion, there was no undue delay and no need for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-07-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1431

    Original Title

    In Re: Michael Darby v., 4th Cir. (2014)

    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, Michael Anthony Darby, 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. However, the court of appeals denied the petition as moot, noting that the district court had recently ruled on the § 2255 motion, granting summary judgment except as to one ineffective assistance of counsel claim which was held for an evidentiary hearing. As the district court had now acted on the § 2255 motion, there was no undue delay and no need for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Michael Darby V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Michael Anthony Darby, 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. However, the court of appeals denied the petition as moot, noting that the district court had recently ruled on the § 2255 motion, granting summary judgment except as to one ineffective assistance of counsel claim which was held for an evidentiary hearing. As the district court had now acted on the § 2255 motion, there was no undue delay and no need for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

    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. 14-1431

    In re: MICHAEL ANTHONY DARBY,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (5:07-cr-01253-MBS-1)

    Submitted:

    July 29, 2014

    Decided:

    July 31, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael Anthony Darby, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael

    Anthony

    Darby

    petitions

    for

    writ

    of

    mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting


    on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion.

    He seeks an order from

    this court directing the district court to act.

    Our review of

    the district courts docket reveals that, on June 27, 2014, the
    district

    court

    granted

    the

    Governments

    motion

    for

    summary

    judgment on Darbys 2255 motion except as to Darbys claim


    that counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately advise him
    regarding a formal plea offer.

    The court ordered this claim be

    held in abeyance pending an evidentiary hearing.

    Accordingly,

    because the district court has recently acted on Darbys 2255


    motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot.
    to proceed in forma pauperis.

    We grant leave

    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