Isaac Wood

Filing 402837653

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998309240-2] Originating case number: 5:05-cr-00131-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998356502] [10-1359]

Isaac Wood

Doc. 402837653

Case: 10-1359

Document: 8

Date Filed: 06/10/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1359 In Re: ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS, Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: May 10, 2010

(5:05-cr-00131-FL) Decided: June 10, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Petitioners Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1359

Document: 8

Date Filed: 06/10/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Isaac Lee Woods and Regina Bailey Woods petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing that Chief Judge Flanagan recuse herself. to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only Dist. in extraordinary 426 circumstances. 394, 402 Kerr v. United States v. We conclude the Woods are not entitled

Court, 333

U.S. 509,

(1976); (4th when Cir. the

United 2003).

States

Moussaoui, mandamus

F.3d is

516-17 only

Further, has a

relief

available

petitioner

clear right to the relief sought.

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We note this is the third time the Woods have raised this issue in this court. See United States v. Woods, Nos. 07-

4485/4486, 2008 WL 4499976 (4th Cir. Oct. 8, 2008) (unpublished) (recusal issue raised in their pro se supplemental brief);

United States v. Woods, Nos. 08-8562, 09-6271/6671/6953, 2009 WL 2480808 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2009) (unpublished) (an appeal from the district court order denying their motion for recusal). In re Nor

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

have the Woods shown they are entitled to the relief sought by way of mandamus. mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2

Case: 10-1359

Document: 8

Date Filed: 06/10/2010

Page: 3

legal before

contentions the court

are and

adequately argument

presented not

in aid

the the

materials decisional

would

process. PETITION DENIED

3