Case ID: f-appx_460/html/0109-01.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 Freddy RIVERA-MARRERO, Petitioner.
    No. 11-4516.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Jan. 26, 2012.
    Opinion filed: Feb. 2, 2012.
    Freddy Rivera-Marrero, Minersville, PA, pro se.
    J. Justin Blewitt, Jr., Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Scranton, PA, Mark E. Morrison, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Respondent.
    Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Freddy Rivera-Marrero seeks a writ of mandamus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, directing the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to rule on his habeas corpus petition.

An appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996). However, subsequent to the filing of this mandamus petition, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the habeas petition be denied. We are confident that the District Court will act on the recommendation without undue delay after the time for objections has expired. Thus, there is no need for this Court to compel the District Court to exercise its authority. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1943).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.