Case ID: f-appx_139/html/0571-02.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: James A. FULLARD, Petitioner.
    No. 05-6381.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 14, 2005.
    Decided: July 26, 2005.
    
      James A. Fullard, Petitioner pro se.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

James A. Fullard petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. More specifically, Fullard alleges in the first page of his mandamus petition that “the District Court didn’t rule on the merits of the case” and attaches the court’s October 9, 2003, order directing the Government to show cause why Fullard’s § 2254 petition should not be granted. We find that there has been no undue delay in the district court because it denied Fullard’s § 2254 petition. See Fullard v. Peguese, No. CA-03-2731-CCB (D. Md. filed Mar. 31, 2004 & entered Apr. 1, 2004). Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED