Skip to main content

LUCZAK v. COAKLEY (2018)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Mr. Casey LUCZAK, Petitioner, v. Mr. Joe COAKLEY, Warden, Respondent.

No. 18-266

Decided: September 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Casey Luczak, Petitioner Pro Se.

Casey Luczak has filed a petition for permission to appeal, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion to appoint counsel. We construe Luczak’s petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we deny Luczak’s petition and deny his motion to expedite as moot. 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

PER CURIAM:

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard