HLD-009 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-2770
___________
IN RE: HERNAN NAVARRO,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 1-99-cr-00016-003 & D.V.I. Civ. No. 1-11-cv-00112)
District Judge: Honorable Wilma A. Lewis
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 24, 2017
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 2, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Hernan Navarro has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the District
Court of the Virgin Islands had failed to rule 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
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
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.
2