In re: Theodore Wagner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed pro se [998751452-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998751450-2] Originating case number: 2:02-cr-181,2:11-cv-2218-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998830279]. Mailed to: Theodore Wagner. [11-2409]

Appeal: 11-2409

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/11/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2409

In Re:

THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:02-cr-00181; 2:11-cv-02218-PMD)

Submitted:

March 19, 2012

Decided:

April 11, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Thomas Wagner, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2409

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/11/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Theodore Thomas Wagner filed a petition for writ of
mandamus and a supplemental mandamus petition challenging the
district court’s order construing as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2006)

District

motion

of

successive.

a

Texas

pleading

and

transferred

dismissing

it

from

without

the

Northern

prejudice

as

We conclude that Wagner is not entitled to mandamus

relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only
Dist.

in

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,
mandamus

426

333

relief

circumstances.

U.S.

F.3d
is

509,

394,

402

516-17

available

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

(1976);
(4th

the

2003).

States

States

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
used as a substitute for appeal.

United

United

Cir.

when

v.

Mandamus may not be

In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Wagner is not available by way of
mandamus.

Accordingly, we grant Wagner’s motion to proceed pro

se and deny the petitions for writ of mandamus.

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
2