# In re: Brown v.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 30, 2002 · 33 F. App'x 127

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1007384

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Jimmy O’Neal BROWN, Petitioner
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 30, 2002
- **Citations:** 33 F. App'x 127
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Motz, Traxler, Gregory
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1007384

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6015

In Re: JIMMY O’NEAL BROWN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CR-98-189, CA-01-410)

Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 30, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy O’Neal Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

On January 7, 2002, Jimmy O. 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1007384. Public record. Not legal advice.