Court Opinion

ID: 9881788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:01:03.501718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:48.789602
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1844      Doc: 10         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1843

        In re: CLIFTON DONELL LYLES,

                             Petitioner.

                                               No. 23-1844

        In re: CLIFTON DONELL LYLES,

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        South Carolina, at Florence. (4:22-cv-03572-SAL-TER; 4:22-cv-01398-SAL)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Clifton Donell Lyles, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1844      Doc: 10          Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Clifton Donell Lyles petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court

        has unduly delayed in transmitting a notice of appeal. He seeks an order from this court

        directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay in the

        district court. * Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                PETITION DENIED

               *
                 We note that while Lyles appears to wish to appeal a magistrate judge’s order
        denying a motion to appoint counsel to this Court, this order is not an appealable
        interlocutory order and thus the district court reasonably docketed the notice as an appeal
        to the district judge.

                                                      2