In re: Woodberry v.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER R. WOODBERRY,
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:05-cv-01440-TLW)
December 20, 2006
January 11, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher R. Woodberry, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Christopher R. Woodberry petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion for recusal. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to act. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought and there are no other adequate means for obtaining the relief. Allied Chem.
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Further, mandamus is a drastic Kerr v.
remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).
The district court dismissed Woodberry's § 2255 motion on November 3, 2006, and Woodberry's mandamus petition is therefore moot. Moreover, Woodberry does not have a clear or indisputable Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed We
right to recusal.
in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
deny as moot Woodberry's motion to expedite. 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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?