Case Name: IN RE: Hernan NAVARRO, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-02
Citations: 699 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 17-2770
Parties: IN RE: Hernan NAVARRO, Petitioner
Judges: Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 123–123

Head Matter:
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:
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.