Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0123-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Hernan NAVARRO, Petitioner
    No. 17-2770
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 24, 2017
    (Opinion filed: November 2, 2017)
    Heman Navarro, Pro Se
    Allan F. John-Baptiste, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Christiansted, VI, for Defendant-Respondent'
    Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

PER CURIAM

Heman Navarro has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the District Court of the Virgin Islands had failed to rale on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On August 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation concerning Navarro’s § 2255 motion and advised Navarro that he could file objections within fourteen days. Although mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” see Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), the case is now moving forward and we find no reason to grant the extraordinary relief of mandamus, see In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). We have, full confidence that the District Court will rule within a reasonable time after the expiration of Navarro’s time to submit objections (and any extension thereof). The petition will thus be denied. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5,7 does not constitute binding precedent.