In Re: Hammitt v. , 195 F. App'x 126 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6771
In Re: RANDY LEE HAMMITT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus.
(3:04-cr-00142-MU)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 21, 2006
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy Lee Hammitt, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Randy Lee Hammitt petitions for writ of prohibition and
mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to vacate
its prior orders and to cease further proceedings related to
Hammitt. We conclude that Hammitt is not entitled to relief.
Mandamus and prohibition relief are 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); In re
Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983). Further, mandamus
and prohibition are drastic remedies and should be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1468; In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). It is well-established that
mandamus and prohibition may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1461; In re United Steelworkers, 595
F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
A district court possesses jurisdiction to enforce its
orders with contempt proceedings. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 401 (West 2000
& Supp. 2005); Cromer v. Kraft Foods North America, 390 F.3d 812,
820 (4th Cir. 2004). A litigant who is aggrieved by a district
court’s exercise of its contempt authority may seek review of the
court’s final judgment by filing a timely notice of appeal.
Accordingly, because Hammitt may challenge any adverse final
judgment of the district court by direct appeal, the relief he
- 2 -
seeks in this proceeding is not available by way of mandamus or
prohibition. We therefore deny the 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.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -