Case ID: f-appx_33/html/0127-02.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 Jimmy O’Neal BROWN, Petitioner.
    No. 02-6015.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 18, 2002.
    Decided April 30, 2002.
    Jimmy O’Neal Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.
    
      Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

On January 7, 2002, Jimmy 0. Brown filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to rule on his motion to retest drug-related evidence. Although Brown’s retest motion was initially filed on October 6, 2000, Brown has since filed a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion reiterating this claim and raising several others. The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on July 24, 2001, and following several more filings by Brown (including a pro se motion to compel judgment on his motion for a retest), the case was again referred to the magistrate judge on January 14, 2002. Because the district court has recently acted in the case, we find no unreasonable delay. Accordingly, we grant Brown’s motion to supplement his petition and deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.