In re: Briggs v. ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1434
In Re: DONNA M. BRIGGS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-98-288, CA-99-83)
Submitted: July 11, 2000 Decided: July 12, 2000
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donna Briggs, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donna M. Briggs has filed a petition for a writ of prohibition
or in the alternative for a writ of mandamus from this court seek-
ing recusal of the district judge and magistrate judge presiding
over her civil action. Briggs also seeks a writ of mandamus from
this court with respect to certain discovery issues resolved ad-
versely to her in the district court. Mandamus is a drastic remedy
to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United
States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is
only available when there are no other means by which the relief
sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
Catawba Indian Tribe of S. Carolina, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.
1992). The more appropriate forum for Briggs’s claims regarding
the management of discovery in her civil action is a direct appeal
from the district court’s final order.
In contrast, Briggs’s claims regarding the district court’s
and magistrate judge’s refusal to recuse themselves are reviewable
by way of mandamus. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d at 827; In re
Rodgers, 537 F.2d 1196, 1197 n.1 (4th Cir. 1976). However, the
nature of the alleged bias warranting recusal must be personal and
not arising out of the litigation. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d at
827. Briggs has not presented anything in this court or in the
district court that would suggest that either the district judge
2
or magistrate judge are personally biased against her. According-
ly, we deny mandamus relief. Similarly, finding that Briggs has
not shown she would be irreparably injured absent a stay of the
district court’s proceedings, we deny Briggs’s motions for a stay
and for a protective order from this court. See Hilton v. Braun-
skill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977,
979 (4th Cir. 1970). Briggs’s motions to compel discovery and to
impose sanctions are also denied. 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