In Re: Williams v. , 284 F. App'x 50 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1123
    In re: STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.      (1:03-cv-00299-NCT)
    Submitted:   May 30, 2008                    Decided:   July 23, 2008
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Stanley Lorenzo Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus
    seeking an order compelling the chief judge of the United States
    District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to act on
    his objections to the magistrate judge’s October 31, 2007, order
    rejecting post-judgment motions in Williams’ 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000) proceeding.         We conclude that Williams is not entitled to
    mandamus relief.
    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).             Further, mandamus is a
    drastic     remedy    and    should    only    be    used    in    extraordinary
    circumstances.       Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 
    426 U.S. 394
    ,
    402 (1976); In re Beard, 
    811 F.2d 818
    , 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
    The record reveals that the chief judge is not assigned
    to Williams’ case and that the assigned judge has already ruled on
    Williams’ objections to the magistrate judge’s October 31, 2007,
    order.    Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.                    Williams’
    motions for expansion of the record and for a permanent stay of
    execution     of     his    state    court    sentences      and   to    expedite
    consideration of the motion for stay are denied.              We dispense with
    oral   argument      because   the    facts    and   legal    contentions    are
    - 2 -
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1123

Citation Numbers: 284 F. App'x 50

Judges: Michael, King, Gregory

Filed Date: 7/23/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024