¶1 Daniel Arthur Duncan petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that on March 16, 2006, the district court dismissed claims one, two and four of Duncan’s § 2255 motion, but referred claim three to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. We find that the case is proceeding apace, and there has been no undue delay. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. 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.
¶2 PETITION DENIED