In Re: Louis Bryant v. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-2405
    In re: LOUIS ANTONIO BRYANT, a/k/a Tinio, a/k/a Black,
    a/k/a B Stacks,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    (3:04-cr-00047-NKM-RSB-1; 3:10-cv-80256-NKM-RSB)
    Submitted:   January 23, 2014               Decided:   January 27, 2014
    Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis Antonio Bryant, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Louis Antonio Bryant petitions for a writ of mandamus
    seeking an order from this Court directing the district court to
    conduct a thorough analysis of his claims.                          We conclude that
    Bryant 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).
    Accordingly, the relief sought by Bryant is not available by way
    of   mandamus.        Although      we   grant     leave     to    proceed    in    forma
    pauperis,     we     deny    the    petition     for      writ    of    mandamus.         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: 13-2405

Judges: Wilkinson, Diaz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 1/27/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024