In Re: Don Boyd , 491 F. App'x 431 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-2124
    In re:   DON BOYD,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    (3:12-cv-00334-JFA)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2012              Decided:   December 26, 2012
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Don Boyd, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Don Boyd petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking that
    this court compel the district judge and magistrate judge to
    recuse       themselves       from    his     civil        action     against       several
    Defendants.       Boyd has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
    We conclude that Boyd is not entitled to mandamus relief.
    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
    only    in    extraordinary      circumstances.             Kerr     v.    United    States
    Dist.    Court,       
    426 U.S. 394
    ,   402     (1976);        United    States       v.
    Moussaoui,      
    333 F.3d 509
    ,    516-17       (4th    Cir.     2003).     Further,
    mandamus      relief    is    available      only    when    the     petitioner      has    a
    clear right to the relief sought.                   In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
    Ass’n, 
    860 F.2d 135
    , 138 (4th Cir. 1988).                          Mandamus may not be
    used as a substitute for appeal.                    In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
    
    503 F.3d 351
    , 353 (4th Cir. 2007).                     Boyd has not established
    that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
    Accordingly, although we grant Boyd’s application 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
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-2124

Citation Numbers: 491 F. App'x 431

Judges: King, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024