In Re: Rochester v. , 260 F. App'x 566 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7341
In Re: JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:97-cv-03924-HMH)
Submitted: December 7, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julian Rochester, a South Carolina inmate, petitions this
court for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the
district court to rule on outstanding motions to reopen in three of
Rochester’s cases. Additionally, Rochester seeks recusal of
various district court and Fourth Circuit judges.
Rochester mistakenly believes that there are outstanding
motions in any of the three cases. In Rochester v. South Carolina
Dep’t of Corrections, No. 2:97-cv-03924-HMH (D.S.C.), the district
court denied Rochester’s motion to reopen by order entered on
October 26, 2004. In Rochester v. South Carolina Dep’t of
Corrections, No. 2:98-00146-WBT (D.S.C.), the district court denied
Rochester’s motion to reopen by order entered on September 10,
2003. Finally, there is no record in the district court of
Rochester’s having filed any motion to reopen in Rochester v. USA,
No. 2:03-cv-01736-HMH (D.S.C.). Rochester therefore is not
entitled to mandamus relief with respect to the allegedly
outstanding motions.
We note that Rochester failed to allege with any
particularity the extrajudicial bias necessary to warrant recusal
of any judge. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, he is not entitled to the relief sought.
Because Rochester is not entitled to the extraordinary
remedy of mandamus, see Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
- 2 -
394, 402 (1976), we deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
- 3 -