In re: Franklin Reave
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998473665-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998466686-2] Originating case number: 4:10-cv-00125-TLW-TER Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998559362].. [10-2267]
Case: 10-2267
Document: 6
Date Filed: 04/04/2011
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2267
In Re:
FRANKLIN C. REAVES, Reverend, PhD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted:
March 31, 2011
(4:10-cv-00125-TLW-TER)
Decided:
April 4, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Franklin C. Reaves, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Case: 10-2267
Document: 6
Date Filed: 04/04/2011
Page: 2
PER CURIAM:
Franklin C. Reaves petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order requiring the district court to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
We conclude that Reaves is
not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances.
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
509,
516-17
(4th
Cir.
2003).
Further,
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).
Reaves asserts various violations of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure by the district court, all stemming from his
belief that pretrial matters were improperly assigned to the
magistrate
judge.
Mandamus,
substitute for appeal.
however,
may
not
be
used
as
a
In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d
351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
As the review of any alleged errors
by the district court may be had through the normal appellate
process, the relief sought by Reaves is not available by way of
mandamus.
Accordingly,
although
we
grant
leave
to
proceed
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
2
the
facts
and
in
We
legal
Case: 10-2267
Document: 6
Date Filed: 04/04/2011
Page: 3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3
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?